'PI 


PiPipsiiiipiw^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 


12.. 

i. 

.2-;, 

LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

Presented  by 

u)r\e.  CAu-v'Wov", 

n  r 

Division... .i... 

Section _..v„.C  . 

sec 


i 
J 


/S-tT 


ERRATA 

Pag'c  27,   line    !(>,    for   'somchiny'    read   'somctliing'' 

Page  50,   line   6,    for   jilan    read   plant 

Pag"e  52,   line    19,    for   Providences    read    Pro\-idenc'" 

Page  91,   line    7    from    bottom,    for   man    read   matter 

Page  133,  line    18,   for   ali   read    all 

Page  237,   line    21,    for   Revlation    read    Revelation 

Page  244,   line   7,    for  Nairn   read   Nain 

Page  244,    line    23,    for   Nairn    read    Nain 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/syllabusofsystemOOclar 


^^-y^'''^^^!^^ 


A  SYLLABUS  OF 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 

By   DAVID  S.  CLARK,   D.D. 


Instructor  in  Systematic  Theology  in  the 
Philadelphia  School  of  Christian  Workers 

of  the 

Presbyterian  and   Reformed   Churches 

FOR  USE  IN  SCHOOLS  AND  CLASSES. 


To  my  beloved  teachers  in  Systematic  Theology, 
Prof.  Archibald  Alexander  Hodge  D.D. 
Prof.  Francis  L.  Patton  D.D. 
Principal  John  Cairns  D.D. 

this  volume  is  reverently  dedicated. 


PREFACE. 

1.  This  is  a  Syllabus.  It  presents  only  a  brief  outline 
for  school  and  class.  A  few  subjects  are  treated  at  some 
leng-fh  because,  either  they  have  been  matters  of  contro- 
versy, or  have  special  interest  at  the  present  time,  e.g"., 
Miracles,  Election,  Justification,  Atonement,  and  Christ's 
Second  Advent. 

2.  The  Scriptures  are  the  authoritative  source  of 
Christian  theology.  We  have  used  to  some  extent  a  proof- 
text  method,  well  aware  of  the  modern  objection  to  proof- 
texts.  We  believe  that  the  exhibition  of  Scriptural  teach- 
ing' is  the  true  method  of  Christian  theolog-y,  and  when  a 
proof-text  is  properly  interpreted  according  to  its  context 
and  the  analogy  of  faith  it  is  not  only  a  legitimate 
method,  but  absolutely  authoritative. 

Biblical  theology  has  its  place  and  gets  due  weig'ht  in 
the  formulation  of  doctrine,  but  cannot  appear  at  length 
in  a  syllabus,  and  must  depend  at  any  rate  upon  the 
proper  interpretation  of  the  text. 

Proof-texts  may  be  and  have  been  sadly  misused. 
Some  minds  have  the  faculty  of  finding,  in  any  text,  what- 
ever they  are  seeking  even  when  it  is  not  there.  But  the 
abuse  of  a  method  is  no  refutation  of  its  proper  use,  and 
w^e  hope  we  have  used  the  method,  where  it  is  used,  in  a 
legitimate  way. 

The  true  method  of  theology  is  inductive,  the  gather- 
ing and  classifying  of  facts,  chiefly  from  the  Scriptures, 
supported  by  any  evidence  from  external  sources,  and  thus 
providing  the  basis  for  doctrinal  definition  in  accordance 
with  the  induction.  The  vital  question  for  the  Christian 
theologian  is:  What  has  God  said?  Modernistic  attempts 
at  theology  are  largely  speculative,  with  no  authority  but 
the  ipse  dixit  of  the  writer.  For  an  example  see 
"Christianity  in  its  Modern  Expression,"  by  the  late  Prof. 
Geo.  B.  Foster. 

The  Biblical  source  and  the  inductive  method  exclude 
no  light  from  other  sources.  The  field  of  induction  is  as 
wide  as  the  universe  and  as  deep  as  being.  No  field  opens 
so  wide  a  vista  as  theology.  All  science,  all  philosophy, 
all  psychology,  all  realms  of  knowledge  lay  down  their 
contributions  to  "the  queen  of  the  sciences." 

3.  Much  criticism  has  been  directed,  in  late  years, 
against  theology,  as  if  it  were  an  outgrown  and  useless 
science.     As  well  might  the  physician  repudiate  anatomv 

—3— 


and  materia  medica,  or  the  jurist  despise  Blackstone  and 
the  laws  of  evidence.  All  men  are  "incurably  religious" 
and  all  men  have  a  theology  and  must  have  one,  whether 
they  recognize  it  or  not. 

Theology  will  not  cease  to  be  a  science  till  men  cease 
to  think,  or  till  they  cease  to  ask:  Whence  did  I  come, 
what  am  I  here  for„  and  whither  am  I  going? 

Principal  P.  T.  Forsyth  sa^^s:  "The  prime  need  of 
religion  today  is  a  theology.  Some  minds,  demoralized  by 
their  very  religion,  cry  out  against  theology,  metaphysics, 
and  academics.  It  is  a  cry  charged  with  the  ruin  of  the 
Christian  future." 

4.  Theo-centric  and  Christo-centric  theologies  are  not 
in  direct  antithesis.  The  Theo-centric  view  is  Theo-centric 
in  regard  to  the  source  from  which  the  system  flows.  The 
Christo-centric  view  is  Christo-centric  in  regard  to  the  fact 
toward  which  it  flows,  or  in  regard  to  the  fact  in  which 
the  system  centers.  One  conceives  of  theology  as  proceed- 
ing from  God,  the  other  considers  it  as  finding  its  chief 
expression  in  Christ, — the  terminus  a  quo,  and  the  ter- 
minus ad  quern  of  revelation, — the  point  from  which  and 
the  point  to  which  one  looks  in  his  theological  vision. 

5.  In  dealing  with  the  subject  of  theology  it  is  posi- 
tively painful  that  a  work  like  this  cannot  give  even  scant 
mention  of  the  literature  of  theology.  What  a  literature! 
How  'rich  and  vast  and  varied!  How  soul-gripping  in  its 
fascination!    Alas  that  life  is  short! 

6.  The  division  into  four  parts.  Theology,  Anthropol- 
ogy, Soteriology,  and  Eschatology,  follows  the  plan  of 
Charles  Hodge.  While  every  theologian  has  his  own  plan, 
the  present  arrangement,  though  not  perfect,  has  the  merit 
of  simplicity  and  con\'enience. 

7.  As  portions  of  this  work  were  prepared  for  class 
exercises  with  no  view  to  publication,  a  few  references 
have  been  lost,  we  trust  thej/^  are  not  many.  We  cheer- 
fully acknowledge  indebtedness  to  the  following: 

Systematic  Theology,  Charles  Hodge. 

Outlines  of  Theology,  A.  A.  Hodge. 

Dogmatic  Theology,  W.  G.  T.  Shedd. 

System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  I.  A.  Dorner. 

Systematic  Theology,  A.  H.  Strong. 

Outlines  of  Christian  Theology,  W.  N.  Clarke. 

System  of  Christian  Theology,  Henry  B.  Smith. 

Commentary  on  Confession  of  Faith,  A.  A.  Hodge. 

Summary  of  Doctrine,  Francis  L.  Patton. 

—4— 


Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief,  Theodore  Christ- 
lieb. 

The  Atonement,  R.  W.  Dale. 

History  of  Doctrine,  W.  G.  T.  Shedd. 

Anti-Theistic  Theories,  Robert  Flint. 

Christian  Doctrine  of  Immortality,  S.  D.  F.  Salmond. 

The  Personality  of  God,  J.  H.  Snowden. 

The  Coming"  of  the  Lord;  Will  it  be  Premillennial? — 
J.  H.  Snowden. 

The  Second  Advent,  David  Brown. 

The  Schaff-Herzog"  Encjxlopedia,  old  and  new  edi- 
tions. 

8.  Many  studj'-classes  have  been  conducted  in  recent 
years,  in  the  church  and  out  of  it,  covering  a  variety  of 
subjects.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  most  interesting-,  vital, 
and  useful  of  all  subjects.  Christian  Doctrine,  may  have  as 
larg-e  a  place  in  such  study-classes  as  the  importance  of 
the  subject  deserves.  If  this  volume  shall  contribute  to 
this  end  its  publication  will  be  justified. 

Not  every  chapter  is  suitable  to  every  class.  The  judg- 
ment of  the  teacher  and  the  character  of  the  class  must 
determine  the  use. 

The  writer  has  endeavored  by  simple  language  and 
explicit  analysis  to  make  the  great  subjects  of  theology 
easily  comprehensible. 

No  one  is  more  alive  to  the  deficiencies  of  the  volume 
than  the  writer,  who  regrets  that  necessity  for  its  use  hur- 
ried the  publication  before  it  could  be  brought  to  finished 
form.  Also  that  the  warmth  and  glow  that  should  char- 
acterize religious  subjects  are  lost  in  condensation.  It  is 
hoped  at  least  that  those  desiring  a  bird's-eye-view  of 
theological  subjects,  a  multum  in  parvo,  may  find  it  here. 
Deo  gloria. 

DAVID  S.  CLARK. 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 


—5— 


Systematic  Theology 


INDEX  PAGE. 


Introduction. 


Chapter     (A) 

Chapter     (B) 

Section 


Section 
Section 


T. 
II. 
III. 


DEFINITION. 
METHOD. 

Speculative. 

Mystical. 

Inductive. 


Chapter     (C)      THE  SOURCE. 

Section  I. 

Section        II. 


Natural  Theolog"y. 
Revealed  Theology. 


Chapter    (D)      THE  SCRIPTURES. 


Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 

Chapter     (E 

Section 
Section 
Section 


I.  Revelation  from  God. 

II.  Inspiration. 

III.  Authority  of  Scriptures. 

IV.  Completeness  of  Scriptures. 
V.  Perspicuity  of  Scriptures. 

VI.  Text  of  Scriptures. 

)      THE  RULE  OF  FAITH. 

I.  Rationalist  Rule  of  Faith. 

II.  Roman  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith. 

III.  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith. 


Chapter 

Section 
Section 
Section 


Part  I.     Theology  Proper. 


I.     CAN  GOD  BE  KNOWN? 


I.      The  Bible  declaration. 
II.      Sir  Wm.  Hamilton's  Teaching. 
III.      Distinction  between  apprehension  and 
comprehension. 
Section       IV.      Can  God  be  defined? 


-7— 


Chapter      II.     PROOFS   FOR   THE   EXISTENCE    OF 
GOD. 

Section  I.      Can  God's  existence  be  proved? 

Section        II.      How  much  proof  is  necessary? 
Section      III.     Arguments  for  God's  existence. 


Chapter     III.     ANTI-THEISTIC  THEORIES. 


Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 


I. 

II. 
III. 
IV. 

V. 


Atheism. 

Polytheism. 

Hylozoism. 

Materialism. 

Pantheism. 


Chapter     IV.     ANTI-CHRISTIAN  THEORIES. 

Section  I.  Deism. 

Section  II.  Rationalism. 

Section  III.  Christian  Science. 

Section  IV.  Pessimism. 

Section  V.  A  Finite  God. 


Chapter  V.     THE  NATURE  OF  GOD. 

Section  I.      The  Oneness  of  God. 

Section  II.      The  Personality  of  God. 

Section  III.      Substance  and  Attributes  of  God. 

Section  IV.      Transcendence  and  Immanence. 

Section  V.     A  Trinity  of  Persons. 


Chapter     VI 

Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 


Section      VI. 


Section 
Section 


THE  DECREES  OF  GOD. 

I.  Purpose  of  God. 

II.  Classification  of  Decrees. 

III.  Events  Embraced. 

IV.  Order  of  Decrees. 
V.  God's  decree  renders  certain  whatever 

is  decreed. 
God's     decree     makes     foreknowledge 
possible. 
VII.     The  decrees  and  free  agency. 
VIII.      Doctrine  of  Election. 


Chapter   VII.     THE  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

Section         I.      Creation. 
Section        II.      Providence. 
Section      III.      Miracles. 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 
INTRODUCTION. 

(A)  Definition. 

The  word  "theology"  comes  from  the  two  Greek 
words  "Theos"  God  and  "logos"  discourse. 

Theology  is  a  science,  and  sometimes  called  the 
"Queen  of  the  Sciences."  Science  is  not  only  a  collection 
and  arrangement  of  facts,  but  the  discovery  and  statement 
of  the  laws  that  govern  them. 

So  Theology  gathers  and  arranges  the  facts  and  points 
out  their  relations,  thus  seeking  to  present  the  subject  in 
an  orderly  and  harmonious  system.  A  sufficient  definition 
is:  Theology  is  the  science  that  deals  with  our  knowledge 
of  God  and  his  relation  to  men. 

(B)  Method. 

I.  Speculative.  This  method  is  deductive — deducing 
the  system  from  some  a-priori  philosophical  principles. 

The  Deistic,  Pantheistic,  and  Rationalistic  theologies 
were  speculative. 

Their  theology  is  derived  from  their  philosophy. 

II.  Mystical.  There  were  those  who  claimed  special 
revelations  from  God,  apart  from  and  superior  to  the 
Scriptures;  and  formulated  their  theology  from  this  sup- 
posed revelation.  Swedenborg.  Anabaptists.  Joseph 
Smith. 

III.  Inductive.  The  inductive  method  is  the  method 
of  natural  science,  the  gathering  of  facts,  classification, 
and  study  of  the  laws  that  govern  them.  This  is  the  true 
method  in  theology  as  in  all  science. 

(C)  Source. 

I.  Natural  Theologry.  This  embraces  the  facts  con- 
tained in  the  works  of  God  as  distinct  from  the  written 
revelation. 

1.     The  created  universe  reveals  much  concerning 
God. 

Ps.  19:1.  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God;  and  the  firma- 
ment sheweth  his  handywork. 

Rom.  1:20.  For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation 
of  the  world  are  clearly  seen  being  understood  by  the  things  that 
are  made. 

—9— 


2.  Natural  theology  is  insufficient  for  the  needs 
of  man. 

It  tells  of  no  way  of  pardon  and  peace  with  God. 

It  provides  no  escape  from  sin. 

It  offers  no  way  of  salvation. 

It  has  no  dynamic,  or  incentive  to  holiness. 

It  contains  no  revelation  of  the  future. 

II.     Revealed  Theology. 

Revealed  theolog"3^  is  that  which  is  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

The  Scriptures  contain  all  the  necessary  facts.  Re- 
vealed theolog'y  teaches  all  that  natural  theology  teaches 
and  more.  Whatever  may  be  known  about  God  and  his 
relation  to  men  from  the  material  universe  or  the  consti- 
tution of  the  human  mind  is  recognized  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  theolog"ian  does  not  discard  any  truth  whether  in 
nature  or  revelation;  but  as  all  truth  is  harmonious,  the 
facts  of  natural  theolog'y  and  the  facts  of  revealed  theol- 
ogy do  not  contradict,  but  supplement  each  other. 

(D)  The  Scriptures. 
I.     The  Bible  contains  a  revelation  from  God — is   a 
revelation  from  God. 

1.  If  there  is  a  good  God  there  is  certainly  a 
revelation. 

Cannot  conceive  that  God  would  not  reveal  him- 
self.   Father  and  son. 

He  made  man  capable  of  knowing,  obeying  and 
worshiping  him  and  a  revelation  is  necessary  to  meet 
these  capabilities. 

There  is  the  strongest  presumption  possible  in 
favor  of  a  revelation. 

2.  If  there  is  a  written  revelation,  the  Bible  of  all 
books  fills  the  bill.    No  other  book  has  superior  claims. 

If  the  Bible  is  not  God's  written  word,  there  is 
none  in  the  world. 

3.  It  is  beyond  controversy  that  the  Bible  is  gen- 
erally trustworthy.  , 

It  is  as  credible  as  ordinary  history  at  least. 

On  the  face  of  it,  it  is  a  plain  book  and  honest  in 
its  statements. 

If  the  Bible  can  be  believed  at  all  then  we  mai' 
believe  what  it  says  about  itself;  and  hundreds  of 
times  it  saj^s:     "Thus  saith  the  Lord." 


4.  The  facts  of  the  book  show  its  divine  author- 
ship. 

(a)  Attested  by  miracles. 

(b)  Reveals  what  only  God  could  know;  e.g.  his- 
tory of  creation.     Prophecies. 

(d)  Has  the  loftiest  moral  system  in  the  world. 

(e)  The  power  it  exercises  over  the  world. 

(f)  The  harmony  and  unity  of  the  whole. 

(g")  Tells  what  man  most  needs  to  know.  Meets 
his  needs  mental  and  spiritual.  Reveals  the  whence, 
what,  and  whither  of  life.  Comforts  him  in  sorrow, 
g'ives  purpose  to  his  life,  reassures  him  in  face  of 
death.  Holds  out  the  incentive  of  a  beatific  destiny. 
Gives  a  reinedy  for  sin,  and  a  way  of  salvation;  is  in 
fact  what  one  would  expect  of  a  revelation. 

II.    The  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

1.  Definition. 

Inspiration  is  the  divine  influence  exercised  on 
the  writers  of  the  Scriptures  to  preserve  thein  from 
error  in  their  teaching'. 

Inspiration  did  not  make  men  mere  inachines; 
was  not  a  merely  mechanical  process,  but  employed 
their  knowledge,  faculties,   style,  etc. 

Inspiration  is  not  inere  dictation;  yet  some  thing^s 
were  dictated. 

Inspiration  guided  the  writers  in  collecting"  and 
expressing"  what  God  wanted  them  to  teach. 

A  difference  between  inspiration  and  revelation. 

2.  Proof  of  Inspiration. 

It  is  important  to  ask,  what  do  the  Scriptures  say 
of  their  own  inspiration — not  what  this  or  that  man 
may  think,  but  what  does  God,  in  the  Scriptures 
SAY? 

The  Scriptures  assert  it  of  themselves,  and  they 
must  either  be  believed  aS'  true  in  this  respect  or 
rejected  in  all  respects. 

(a)   The  Old  Testament  claims^  inspiration. 

Deut.  4:2.     Moses'  words  are  said  to  be  the  commands  of  God. 

Deut.  4:5.     I  have  taught  as  the  Lord  commanded  me. 

Deut.  6:1-2.  These  are  the  commandments  which  the  Lord  God 
commanded  to  teach. 

II.  Sam.  23:2.  The  Spirit  of  God  spake  by  me  and  his  word  was 
in  my  tongue. 

Is.   1:10.     Hear  the  word  of   the  Lord. 

Jer.   1:2.     To  whom  the  word  of  the  Lord  came. 

— II — • 


Jer.  1:9.     Behold  I  have  put  my  words  into  thy  mouth. 
Ezek.  3:1.     Son  of  man  eat  this  roll  and  go  speak  unto  Israel. 
Ezek.   3:4.     Son  of  man   go  get   thee   to   the   house  of  Israel   and 
speak  with  my  words  unto  them. 

Hos.   1:1.     The  word  of  the  Lord   that  came  unto  Hosea. 

Joel  1:1.     The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  to  Joel. 

Amos  1:3.     Thus  saith  the  Lord.     2:1.     Thus  saith  the  Lord. 

Amos  3:1.     Hear  the  word  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken. 

Ob.  1:1.     Thus  saith  the  Lord  God. 

Micah   1:1.     The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  unto  Micah. 

(b)  The  New  Testament  declares  the  inspiration 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

Lk.  1:70.     As  he  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets. 

Acts  4:25.  Who  (thru  the  Holy  Spirit)  by  the  mouth  of  thy 
servant  David  hath  said. 

Heb.  1:1.  God  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners 
spake  by  the  prophets. 

n.  Tim.  3:16.     All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God. 

L  Pet.  i:ii.  Searching  what  the  Spirit  of  Christ  who  was  in 
them  did  signify. 

n.  Pet.  1:21.  For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the 
will  of  men;  but  holy  men  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

(c)  The  Inspiration  of  the  New  Testament. 

Inspiration  was  promised  to  the  Apostles;  and 
accordingly  they  present  their  words  as  the  words  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

Matt.  10:19.  It  shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour  what  ye  shall 
speak. 

Jno.  14:26.  The  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  all  things  and  bring 
all  things  to  your  remembrance  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you. 

Jno.  15:26-27.  The  Spirit  of  truth  shall  testify  of  me,  and  ye 
shall  also  bear  witness  because  ye  have  been  with  me  from  the 
beginning. 

Jno.  16:13.  When  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide  you 
into  all  truth. 

Acts  2:33.  Having  received  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he 
hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now^  see  and  hear. 

Acts  15:28.  For  it  seemed  good  to  us  and  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  necessary'  things. 

I.  Thes.  1:5.  For  our  gospel  came  not  unto  you  in  word  only, 
but  also  in  power  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in  assurance. 

L  Cor.  2:13.  Which  things  we  speak,  not  in  the  words  wliich 
man's  wisdom   teacheth,  but  which   the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth. 

H.  Cor.  13:3.  Since  ye  seek  a  proof  of  Christ  speaking  in  me,  I 
will  not  spare. 

H.  Pet.  3:16.  Puts  Paul's  epistles  on  a  level  with  the  Old 
Testament. 

li  Thes.  2:13.  When  ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye 
heard  of  us,  ye  received  it,  not  as  the  word  of  men,  but  as  it  is  in 
truth,  the  word  of  God. 

— 12— 


3.     Differing-  theories  of  Inspiration. 

(a)  No  inspiration.  The  Bible  but  a  human 
book. 

(b)  That  the  event  was  inspired  but  not  the  rec- 
ord of  the  event. 

(c)  That  the  thought  was  inspired  but  not  the 
words. 

Answer:  We  think  in  words.  Shedd  says:  "An 
idea  is  an  internal  word.    A  word  is  an  external  idea." 

The  Scriptures  recognize  this: 

Ps.    14:1.     The   fool   hath   said   in   his   heart. 
Lk.  3:8.     Begin  not  to  say  within  yourselves. 

The  Bible  always  refers  to  the  words  in  speaking 
of  inspiration.  Holy  men  SPAKE.  ALL  SCRIPTURE, 
etc. 

(d)  That  writers  were  preserved  from  error  in 
matters  necessary  to  salvation,  but  not  as  to  other 
matters  like  history,  chronology,  science,  etc. 

Answer:  It  is  impossible  to  tell  what  is  and  what 
is  not  necessary  to  salvation. 

If  the  history  is  false  the  doctrines  cannot  be 
true. 

If  the  gospels  are  mythical  we  have  no  Saviour. 

If  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  a  fancy,  our  faith 
is  vain. 

Such  vital  matters  as  the  incarnation,  atonement, 
salvation,  resurrection,  and  future  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments, require  the  guidance  of  an  infallible  Spirit 
to  avoid  a  statement  of  them  that  would  be  mislead- 
ing. 

(e)  Plenarj'^  and  Verbal  Inspiration  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  church. 

Plenary  inspiration  means  that  the  Bible  is  in- 
spired in  all  its  parts. 

Verbal  inspiration  means  that  in  the  making-  of 
the  Scriptures  the  superintendence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
extended  to  the  words. 

The  Scriptures  assert  a  verbal  inspiration.  See 
proofs  above. 

What  the  Scriptures  say  of  their  own  inspiration 
determines  our  doctrine. 

The  Scriptures  constantly  claim  that  their  words 
were  given  or  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Objection  is  sometimes  made  that  if  verbal  inspi- 
ration holds,  then  must  the  Bible  use  the  exact  and 

—13— 


technical  languag"e  of  modern  science.  But  the  Bible 
uses  the  lang"uag"e  of  common  speech  exact  enoug"h 
and  understood  bj'  all  as  the  technical  terms  would 
not  be. 

At  any  rate  who  has  guaranteed  that  the  tech- 
nical language  of  science  will  never  change? 

(f)  Does  inspiration  guarantee  inerrancy'?  Some 
controversy  over  this.  Inerrancj'^  does  not  mean  that 
the  wTiters  were  faultless  in  life,  but  preserved  from 
error  in  teaching.  They  themselves  may  have  had 
wrong  conceptions  about  many  things,  but  did  not 
teach  them;  e.g.  as  to  earth,  stars,  social  or  political 
life,  etc. 

Inerrancy  does  not  mean  that  a  wrong  interpreta- 
tion could  not  be  put  on  the  text,  or  that  it  could  not 
be  misunderstood. 

Inerrancy  does  not  deny  the  flexibility  of  lan- 
guage as  a  vehicle  of  communication.  It  is  often 
difficult  to  conve3'  an  exact  statement  because  of  this 
flexibility  of  language,  or  possible  variation  of  mean- 
ing in  words. 

Inerrancy  means  that  the  truth  is  conveyed  in 
words  which,  understood  as  they  were  meant  to  be 
understood,  express  no  error. 

What  do  the  Scriptures  saj'  as  to  their  own  iner- 
rancy? 

ist,  That  thej^  are  the  word  of  God.  and  God  can- 
not err. 

2nd,  Matt.  5:18.  One  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no 
wise  pass  from  the  law,  etc. 

3rd,  Jno.  10:35.  The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken 
(as  to  a  single  word), 

4th,  Gal.  3:16.  Paul's  argument  turns  on  the 
singular  or  plural  number  of  a  word — seed. 

III.    The  Authority  of  the  Scriptures. 

(a)  Protestantism  has  always  stood  for  the  au- 
thoritj^  of  the  Scriptures. 

If  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God  they  are  of 
absolute  authority'.  There  is  no  appeal  from  the  word 
of  God  to  any  higher  court. 

All  appeal  from  the  Scriptures  to  the  church,  or 
tradition,  or  reason  or  public  sentiment  is  illogical 
and  destructive. 

I.  Jno.  5:9.  If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men,  the  witness  of 
God   is   greater. 

I.  Thes.  2:13.  When  ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye 
heard  of  us,  ye  received  it  not  as  the  word  of  man,  but  as  it  is 
indeed,  the  word  of  God. 

—  14— 


(b)  Romanists  exalt  the  church  above  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  claim  an  infallible  church.  They  criticise 
Protestants  for  taking"  authority  from  the  church  and 
placing"  it  in  a  book. 

The  testimony  of  the  church  is  valuable  as  to 
cononicity,  in  determining"  what  is  Scripture,  but  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  derived  from  the 
church. 

A  man  may  be  a  witness  to  my  claim,  without 
my  deriving  that  claim  from  him. 

(c)  Rationalists  make  reason  the  supreme  author- 
ity- 

Schleiermacher  based  his  theology  on  the  feel- 
ing's, Dorner  on  experience,  Ritschl  on  the  congruitj^ 
of  experience  and  revelation. 

IV.    Completeness  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  Scriptures  are  sufficiently  complete.  All 
thing's  needful  for  salvation  and  life  are  contained  in 
the  Scriptures  or  readily  deduced  therefrom. 

No  new  revelations  are  necessary  like  those  of 
Swedenborg  and  the  Mormons. 

Tradition  is  not  on  a  level  with  the  Bible. 
The  Scriptures  do  not  g"o  into  all  the  details  of  life; 
but  in  these  we  may  be  g"uided  by  the  general  prin- 
ciples and  spirit  of  the  book.  Some  say:  "What  is 
not  commanded  is  forbidden."  We  had  better  say: 
"What  is  not  commanded  cannot  be  enjoined." 

V.     Perspicuity  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  Scriptures  are  sufficiently  clear.  They  may  be 
read  by  the  unlearned  man,  and  are  desig'ned  for  personal 
use. 

(a)  Romanists  deny  this  and  claim  that  men 
must  not  interpret  for  themselves,  but  accept  what 
the  church  declares  to  be  the  sense. 

(b)  Protestants  open  the  Bible  to  all,  but  admit 
the  benefit  of  scholarship  and  prog"ress  in  accurate 
interpretation. 

The   Protestant  position  is  best;   because — 

The  Scriptures  are  addressed  to  all  men. 

We  are  commanded  to  search  the  Scriptures. 

The  practice  of  the  Apostolic  age  confirms  it. 
Note  the  Bereans  and  that  Timothy  knew  the  vScrip- 
tures  from  a  child. 

Wherever  the  Scriptures  are  read  the  best  t>T)e  of 
Christian  life  prevails. 

—15— 


VI.     The  Text  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  orig-inal  manuscripts  in  Hebrew  and  Greek  were 
those  immediately  inspired,  and  of  which  authenticity 
and  inerrancy  are  affirmed. 

The  Scriptures  have  come  down  to  us  in  manuscripts 
of  the  orig-inal  lang-uages.  in  quotations  of  early  writers, 
and  in  translations  into  other  languages. 

The  text  is  singularly,  or  at  least  comparatively,  pure. 

Some  alterations  and  mistakes  of  copyists  have  oc- 
curred. 

Our  difficulties  are  chiefly  due  to  these  mistakes  of 
transmission,  and  failure  to  understand  idioms  and  idio- 
syncrasies of  other  ages,  and  to  render  them  properly. 

The  oldest  extant  Hebrew  manuscripts  date  from  the 
9th  or  loth  century  A.  D. 

The  oldest  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
are  from  the  3rd  or  4th  century. 

(E)  The  Rule  of  Faith. 

I.  Rationalists  make  reason  the  rule  of  faith. 

They  repudiate  both  the  inspiration  and  authority  of 
the  Scriptures. 

II.  The  Roman  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith. 

(a)  Includes  the  Apocrapha  in  the  canon. 

(b)  As  the  Scriptures  are  considered  incomplete, 
tradition  becomes  a  second  authority,  or  the  comple- 
ment of  the  Scriptures. 

(c)  As  the  vScriptures  are  considered  obscure 
the  church  claims  to  be  the  infallible  interpreter. 

(d)  The  Latin  Vulgate  is  the  authoritative  text 
authorized  by  the  church. 

III.  The  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith. 

(a)  Shorter  Catechism,  Quest.  2.  What  rule  hath 
God  given,  etc. 

(b)  The  canon  is  established  as  follows: — 

As  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  books  contained  in 
our  Old  Testament  and  these  only  were  the  sacred 
books  of  the  Jews. 

Christ  and  his  Apostles  quoted  and  gave  their 
sanction  to  all  the  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the 
word  of  God. 

As  to  the  New  Testament,  the  books  now  con- 
tained in  our  New  Testament  are  accepted  on  the 
testimony  of  the  early  fathers  and  councils  that  they 
proceeded  from  the  Apostles,  or  those  associated  with 
them. 

—16— 


(c)  As  to  the  Apocrapha,  it  is  rejected — 

Because  it  was  not  included  in  the  Jewish  canon, 
and  not  written  in  Hebrew. 

Because  never  quoted  or  referred  to  by  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  as  a  part  of  the  holy  scriptures. 

Because  the  contents  are  not  such  as  to  justify  a 
claim  of  inspiration,  either  as  to  historical  truthful- 
ness, harmony  with  other  scriptures,  or  as  a  moral 
standard. 

(d)  Relation  of  Reason  to  Revelation. 

Neither  religion  nor  revelation  is  contrar^'  to  rea- 
son; we  are  not  asked  to  believe  the  impossible  or  the 
contradictory. 

Reason  means  more  than  mere  reasoning"  or  the 
working-  out  of  a  syllogistic  dernonstration.  Reason 
means  the  whole  cognitive  faculty  or  power  of  the 
mind  to  know. 

The  Scriptures  do  not  repudiate  reason,  but  ever 
appeal  to  it. 

Reason  is  therefore  necessary  as  a  primary  condi- 
tion of  knowledge. 

Reason  must  apprehend  a  revelation,  examine  its 
evidences,  and  judge  of  its  credibility. 

Revelation  does  not  derive  its  authority  from 
reason  but  presents  itself  to  reason  for  reception  and 
understanding. 

Reason  is  essential  to  deduce  from  revelation 
necessary  inferences  and  conclusions,  and  apply  them 
to  practical  ends. 

Revelation  may  disclose  what  the  human  mind 
could  not  discover,  e.g.  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or 
that  for  which  it  can  assign  no  reason. 

Revelation  may  be  incomprehensible  to  some  or 
all  finite  minds  and  yet  true.  Comprehension  is  not 
the  test  of  truth.  What  is  comprehensible  to  one 
mind  may  be  incomprehensible  to  another.  The  babe 
cannot  understand  Geometry  nor  the  finite  mind  the 
infinite  God  in  all  his  being  and  all  his  ways. 

Incomprehensible  and  contradictory  are  not 
equivalent  terms. 

In  short  reason  must  apprehend,  examine,  judge, 
receive,  and  use  revelation. 

—17— 


PART  FIRST,  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 
THEOLOGY  PROPER. 

Chapter  I.    Can  God  be  Known? 
Section  I.     The  Bible  declares: — 

Jno.  17:3.     This  is  life  eternal  to  know  God,  etc. 

Isa.  11:9.     The  earth  shall  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord. 

The  manifestation  of  God  in  nature,  his  revelation  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  his  incarnation  in  Jesus  Christ  assures 
us  that  God  can  be  known. 

Section  II.  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton  taught  that  God  could 
not  be  known  because  he  is  the  Absolute  and  the  Abso- 
lute has  no  relation  to  anything-  else,  and  therefore  un- 
knowable. Knowledge  would  imply  a  relation  and  the 
Absolute  has  no  relation. 

But  his  definition  of  the  Absolute  was  wrong. 

He  further  taught  that  God  could  not  be  known  be- 
cause he  is  the  Infinite  and  the  infinite  is  the  illimitable 
and  the  illimitable  is  the  unknowable: — that  the  infinite 
is  the  all  and  therefore  there  is  no  distinction  between 
subject  and  object.  Knowledge  would  imply  such  a  dis- 
tinction and  therefore  destroy  his  infinity.  A  knowledge 
of  the  infinite  would  divide  between  the  knower  and  the 
known  and  therefore  the  known  would  not  be  infinite. 

This  again  is  a  wrong  conception  of  the  infinite.  The 
infinite  is  not  the  all. 

This  doctrine  has  been  termed  Agnosticism.  It  had 
its  rise  in  the  philosophy  of  Kant,  chracterized  in  some 
respects  the  Transcendentalists,  found  expression  in 
Hume,  Hamilton,  Mansel  and  Huxley  and  came  to  cul- 
mination in  Herbert  Spencer. 

Section  III.  We  must  distinguish  between  apprehen- 
sion and  comprehension. 

We  can  know  that  God  is,  without  knowing  all  he  is. 

We  can  touch  the  earth  while  not  able  to  embrace  it 
in  our  arms. 

The  child  can  know  God  while  the  philosopher  can- 
not find  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection. 

Section  IV.  Can  God  be  defined?  Can  we  put  God 
into  definition? 

If  by  "define"  we  mean  to  limit,  we  cannot  define 
God.  But  we  can  point  out  those  characteristics  which 
mark  his  being  and  thus  make  a  definition  of  God. 

The  best  definition  is  Shorter  Catechism  4,  God  is  a 
Spirit,  infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable  in  his  being, 
wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and  truth. 

—18— 


Chapter  II.    Proofs  for  the  Existence  of  God. 

Section  I.    Can  God's  existence  be  proved? 

Disting"uish  between  proof  and  mathematical  demon- 
stration. The  proof  of  God's  existence  is  not  the  proof  of 
a  mathematical  equation;  but  the  proof  of  cumulative 
evidence,  such  as  is  recognized  in  every  courtroom  in  the 
world. 

It  is  proof  that  carries  conviction  because  of  its  ra- 
tional evidence. 

Section  II.     How  much  proof  is  necessary? 

A  little  proof  may  show  that  there  is  a  God,  while  no 
amount  of  proof  that  man  can  gather  can  ever  prove 
there  is  no  God. 

The  imprint  of  a  bird's  foot  in  a  rock  would  prove 
that  sometime  a  bird  had  visited  the  Atlantic  seaboard. 
But  before  one  could  say  that  no  bird  had  ever  been  here 
he  must  know  the  whole  history  of  the  coast  since  life 
began  on  the  globe. 

A  little  evidence  may  show  that  there  is  a  God;  but 
before  any  man  can  say  that  there  is  no  God,  he  must 
analyze  all  the  matter  in  the  universe,  he  must  track 
down  all  forces,  mechanical,  electrical,  vital,  mental  and 
spiritual, — he  must  hold  converse  with  all  spirits  and  un- 
derstand them  thoroughly,  he  must  be  in  all  points  of 
space  at  every  moment  of  time  lest  God  somewhere  and 
somehow  eludes  his  notice.  He  must  be  omnipotent, 
omnipresent  and  eternal,  in  fact  he  must  himself  be  God 
before  he  can  dogmatically  affirm  that  there  is  no  God. 

Belief  in  a  personal  God,  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of 
the  universe,  is  called  Theism. 

Section  III.    Arguments  for  the  existence  of  God. 

1.,    The  Ontological  Argument.     Ontos  logos. 

The  O'ntological  Argument  runs  thus: — the  human 
mind  possesses  the  idea  of  an  absolutely  perfect  being. 
But  the  most  perfect  being  must  have  necessary  exist- 
ence, and  necessary  existence  requires  actual  exist- 
ence. A  contingent  being  may  or  may  not  exist;  but 
the  most  perfect  being  must  have  actual  existence. 

For  an  extensive  discussion  of  this  argument,  and 
refutation  of  Gaunilo's  objection,  see  Dogmatic  The- 
oolgy,  Shedd,  Vol.  I,  p.  222  ff. 

2.  The  Cosmological  Argument.  Kosmos  logos, 
(also  called  Aetiological.) 

(a)  This  argument  is  derived  from  the  law  of 
cause  and  effect.     It  is  an  intuitive  truth  that  every 

—19— 


effect  must  have  an  adequate  cause.  The  universe  is 
an  effect  therefore  it  must  have  had  a  cause.  The 
cause  must  be  distinct  from  the  effect  else  the  effect 
would  be  its  own  cause  and  therefore  nothing-  could 
produce  something-  which  is  a  contradiction. 

The  world  or  the  universe  is  an  effect  because 
everything-  in  it,  substance  order  and  life,  is  change- 
able and  mutable.  Matter  as  we  know  it  is  composite. 
Life  on  this  g-lobe  had  a  beg-inning.  A  first  cause  is 
therefore  a  logical  necessity. 

Plato  and  Aristotle  argued  from  motion  to  an 
eternal  self-moving  power. 

Heb.  3:4.    Every  house  is  builded  by  some  man,  but  he  who  built 
all  things  is  God. 

The  alternatives  are,  the  eternity  of  the  present 
order,  or  an  infinite  series  of  causes. 

The  former  is  refuted  by  our  observation  and  con- 
sciousness, and  the  latter  is  unthinkable. 

(b)  Hume  objected  that  we  know  nothing  of 
cause  only  of  sequence,  that  because  one  thing  follows 
another  is  no  proof  of  cause  and  effect  but  only  an 
invariable  sequence. 

Even  though  we  see  a  man  make  a  watch  or  a 
gun  and  cannot  escape  the  fact  of  causation  thus  far, 
yet  we  have  never  seen  worlds  made  and  are  not  enti- 
tled to  conclude  that  the  world  had  a  cause. 

(c)  It  is  objected  that  this  argument  does  not 
prove  that  the  cause  is  GOD. 

Answer:  This  arg'ument  is  just  one  link  in  the 
chain  of  evidence  and  is  supplemented  by  others. 

(d)  Any  doctrine  of  evolution  or  development 
cannot  refute  the  cosmological  argument. 

No  effect  can  transcend  its  cause.  The  stream 
cannot  rise  higher  than  its  source.  Something  cannot 
come  from  nothing.  Life  cannot  arise  but  from  the 
source  of  life.  Intelligence  cannot  proceed  from  the 
non-intelligent.  Personality  cannot  come  from  the 
impersonal.  A  process  of  development  requires  a 
maker  of  the  process. 

See  Outlines  of  Theology,  A.  A.  Hodge,  page  35. 

3.     The  Teleological  Argument.     Telos  logos. 

This  is  the  argument  from  design,  or  purpose,  or 
adaptation.  Design  implies  a  designer.'  The  world 
exhibits  design  therefore  it  had  an  intelligent  maker. 
The  old  illustration  of  the  watch  is  valid  still.    Seeing 

— 20 — 


a  ship  in  a  bay  no  one  could  believe  that  its  pieces  of 
steel  and  timber  floated  tog-ether  and  adjusted  them- 
selves into  a  great  dreadnought  with  all  its  compli- 
cated structure. 

The  world  is  full  of  design.  The  Bridgewater 
Treatises,  one  of  which  deals  with  the  hand,  supplies 
abundant  evidence. 

Chemistry,  Astronomy,  and  all  the  sciences  bear 
witness  of  design.  The  arg-ument  is  not  limited  to  the 
material  world  but  embraces  the  mental  constitution 
of  our  nature  as  well. 

The  possession  of  memory,  affection,  will,  etc., 
shows  evidence  of  design  as  well  as  the  construction 
and  functions  of  the  body. 

One  objection  to  this  argument  is  that  adaptation 
is  rather  accidental  than  desig"ned,  e.g".  because  the 
nose  is  used  to  support  spectacles  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  was  made  with  that  specific  design. 

Such  denial  could  not  be  made  of  all  the  evi- 
dences of  desig-n  in  the  world.  The  eye  was  evidently 
desig-ned  for  sight  and  was  no  mere  accident. 

If  it  is  asked  how  this  adaptation  is  accounted  for 
if  not  by  a  desig-ner  the  answer  is,  by  chance  or  by 
law.  There  is  a  million  to  one  against  chance.  As  for 
law,  the  law  has  to  be  accounted  for  as  well  as  the 
fact.  Law  requires  a  law  giver  even  when  we  speak 
of  natural  law. 

4.  The  Argument  from  Man's  Moral  and  Reli- 
gious Nature. 

(a)  We  have  a  moral  nature,  the  author  of  that 
nature  must  be  a  moral  being.  Conscience  testifies  to 
the  fact  of  a  moral  law.  That  law  implies  a  moral 
law  giver. 

(b)  We  have  a  sense  of  responsibility;  we  feel 
that  we  must  answer  fdr  what  we  are  and  for  what  we 
do.  This  feeling  of  responsibility  is  not  to  ourselves, 
nor  to  mankind  in  general,  but  to  some  superior  being 
who  is  cognizant  of  good  and  ill,  whO'  rewards  the 
good  and  punishes  the  evil.  That  being  must  be  a 
person,  a  moral  person  greater  and  higher  than  our- 
selves. 

(c)  The  universality  of  the  moral  nature  shows 
that  it  is  not  due  merely  to  education,  but  is  a  part  of 
our  nature  as  given  to  us  by  our  Creator. 

(d)  Sin  brings  a  sense  of  guilt,  a  conviction  that 
we  deserve  punishment.  This  implies  a  righteous 
judge. 

— 21  — 


(e)  We  see  that  good  and  evil  are  not  proportion- 
ately rewarded  in  this  world.  This  requires  an  adjust- 
ment hereafter,  and  necessitates  a  just  tribunal  before 
a  just  judge. 

(f)  Man  has  certain  ineradicable  religious  convic- 
tions. 1 

Some  one  has  said:  "Man  is  incurably  religious." 
It  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  where  he  has  no  knowledge 
of  the  true  religion  he  invents  one  for  himself.  The 
great  heathen  religions  are  essentially  just  the  mighty 
strivings  of  the  human  spirit  to  answer  its  own  reli- 
gious questions,  and  express  its  ineradicable  convic- 
tions. Thej^  all  bear  indubitable  testimony  to  the 
religious  nature  of  man  and  therefore  indirectly  to  the 
being  of  God. 

Man's  sense  of  dependence  on  a  higher  power  is 
universal;  his  quick  appeal  to  a  higher  being  in  time 
of  danger  is  instinctive;  his  conceptions  of  infinity, 
his  longing  for  immortality,  his  sense  of  life's  incom- 
pleteness are  inherent  in  his  nature. 

A  heathen  woman  hearing-  for  the  first  time  of  a 
God  of  mercy,  love  and  goodness  exclaimed:  "There, 
I  told  you  there  must  be  a  God  such  as  that."  Helen 
Keller  when  first  told,  by  Phillips  Brooks,  of  the  great 
and  good  being  called  God,  smiled  radiantly'  and  re- 
plied: "Wh3^  I  have  known  him  all  the  time  only  I 
did  not  know  his  name." 

Man  feels  profoundl^^  convinced,  without  formal 
argument,  that  there  must  be  some  objective  reality  to 
his  heart's  deepest  need,  and  answering  its  inextin- 
guishable cry:  else  his  nature  is  a  mockery  and  he  is 
imposed  upon  in  the  very  constitution  of  his  being. 

The  universal  human  heart  says:  there  must  be  a 
God.  The  cry  of  human  nature  can  only  find  the 
answer  to  its  cry  in  a  personal,  living  and  loving  God. 

Plato  was  right  when  he  said  that  atheism  is  a 
disease. 

Again,  the  moral  intuitions  of  men  are  the  pre- 
requisites of  any  knowledge  of  God.  They  provide 
the  human  capacity  into  which  the  God-knowledge 
should  come — the  soil  prepared  to  receive  the  seed — 
the  ear  attuned  to  detect  his  voice. 

God's  personality,  love,  justice,  truth,  holiness  are 
comprehensible  only  because  God  has  implanted  in 
the  structure  of  human  nature  the  element  or  power  of 
receptivity.     Into  this  structural  receptacle  God's  rev- 

^22— 


elation  conies,  and  fits  the  nature  thus  prepared  like  a 
key  to  its  lock.  Human  nature  was  made  for  the  rev- 
elation, and  the  revelation  was  made  for  the  human 
nature  and  we  have  the  three-fold  testimony — the  wit- 
ness of  human  nature — the  witness  of  revelation— and 
the  witness  ojf  their  fitness  for  each  other. 

5.  The  Historical  Argument. 

The  history  of  the  world  gives  evidence  of  an 
overruling"  power. 

That  God  has  been  in  the  history  of  the  human 
race  can  scarcely  be  doubted  by  an  unprejudiced 
mind. 

The  principles  of  God's  moral  g'overnment  are  ex- 
hibited in  the  history  of  nations  as  well  as  in  the 
experience  of  men. 

Ps.  75:7.  But  God  is  the  judge,  he  putteth  down  one  and  set- 
teth  up  another. 

Dan.   2:21.     He   removeth  kings  and   setteth  up  kings. 

Dan.  5:21.  Till  he  knew  that  the  most  high  God  ruled  in  the 
kingdom  of  men  and  he  appointeth  over  it  whomsoever  he  will. 

Eng-lish  Protestantism  looks  upon  the  defeat  of 
the  Spanish  Armada  as  a  divine  intervention. 

The  settlement  of  America  by  Protestant  immi- 
grants saved  it  from  the  fate  of  South  America  and 
thereby  saved  the  world  for  democracy. 

Who  will  deny  that  God's  hand  was  in  all  this? 

When  destruction  threatened  the  world  by  Ger- 
man ag-g-ression,  men  said:  "Where  is  now  thy  God?" 
But  we  now  reply  with  the  trench  poet: 

"I  know  when  noble  men  rose  up  to  fig"ht 
There  is  a  God,  there  is  a  God." 

The  historical  arg^ument  also  includes  the  fact 
that  all  nations  have  had  the  belieif  that  there  is  a 
supreme  being".  What  all  the  world  has  believed  may 
well  be  true. 

6.  Kant's  Objections. 

Kant  subjected  the  arguments  for  the  existence 
of  God  to  a  searching  criticism. 

As  to  the  Ontological  he  held  that  the  idea  was 
no  guarantee  of  objective  reality;  the  Cosmological 
argument  was  offset  by  the  possibility  of  an  infinite 
series  of  causes  which  Kant  held  to  be  thinkable;  the 
Teleological  argument  gave  us  only  an  artificer  but 
not  the  God  of  theology;  the  Moral  argument  after 
some  restrictions,  was  allowed  considerable  weight 
and  was  a  practical  evidence  of  the  existence  of  God. 

—23^ 


Kant's  position  on  these  subjects  was  warped  by 
his  philosophy  which  was  a  transcendental  idealism. 

He  held  that  as  to  the  external  world  we  know 
only  phenomena  but  not  things  in  themselves;  and 
that  even  this  knowledge  is  conditioned  by  a-priori 
concepts  of  the  mind;  that  appearances  give  us  no 
knowledge  of  things. 

Kant's  system  had  serious  consequences. 

His  arguments  helped  rather  than  refuted  the 
Deism  of  Hume. 

On  the  other  hand  it  was  but  a  short  step  from  his 
theory  of  knowledge  to  ultra  idealism  that  denied  the 
existence  of  any  external  world. 

And  further,  after  his  valuation  of  the  arguments 
for  the  Divine  existence  it  is  not  strange  to  hear  his 
disciple,  Fichte,  declaring  that  the  moral  order  of  the 
world  is  God  and  there  is  no  other  God. 

Since  Kant's  premises  were  wrong  his  conclusions 
were  also  wrong. 

A  wrong  psychology  gave  rise  to  a  wrong  theol- 
ogy. We  deny  Kant's  premises  and  hold  to  the  valid- 
ity of  the  arguments  which  he  repudiated,  and  assert 
that  we  have  knowledge  of  things  through  phenom- 
ena. 

If  Kant's  reasoning  were  valid  it  would  apply 
against  the  moral  argument  which  he  admitted;  for  if 
our  Knowledge  be  a  delusion  our  moral  concepts  may 
be  also. 

The  phenomenal  theory  o|f  knowledge  was  an- 
swered by  Dr.  James  McCosh. 

Whoever  impugns  the  trustworthiness  of  our  fac- 
ulties falls  into  the  pit  which  he  himself  has  digged. 
He  virtually  denies  the  truth  of  his  denial.  It  is  true 
as  Thomas  Aquinas  pointedly  said:  "Etiam  qui  negat 
veritatem  esse,  concedid  veritatem  esse;  si  enim  Veri- 
tas non  est,  non  verum  est  non  esse  veritatem." 


Chapter  III.    Anti-Theistic  Theories. 

Section  I.     Atheism. 

Atheism  is  the  belief  that  there  is  no  God.  Atheism 
is  incapable  of  proof.  No  one  can  prove  that  there  is  no 
God. 

But  Atheism  is  chiefly  occupied  in  denials  rather  than 
affirmation. 

—24— 


The  Atheist  may  substitute  for  a  personal  God  the 
persistence  of  force,  the  laws  of  nature,  or  the  potentiality 
of  impersonal  substance. 

Atheism  is  refuted  by  proving  Theism  to  be  true. 

Section  II.     Polytheism. 

Polytheism  is  the  belief  in  many  Gods.  Polus,  many; 
Theos,  God. 

Polytheism  seems  to  have  arisen  by  means  of  nature 
worship.  A  personal  being"  was  supposed  to  preside  over 
the  natural  elements  as  sun,  moon,  rivers,  winds,  etc. 

Polytheism  has  always  led  to  moral  degradation. 

Many  of  the  gods  were  believed  to  possess  all  the  evil 
passions  of  the  human  heart,  and  the  worshipper  never 
rises  above  the  object  of  his  worship. 

If  polytheism  exists  in  the  world  today  it  is  a  vanish- 
ing minimum. 

The  law  of  parsimony  requires  us  not  to  assign  more 
causes  than  necessary,  hence  a  single  personal  and  infinite 
God  satisfies  the  rational  mind  more  than  a  multiplicity 
of  gods. 

It  was  the  rational  weakness  of  Polytheism  that  gave 
Mohammedism  its  opportunity,  and  contributed  to  its 
success. 

Section  III.     Hylozoism. 

Hylozoism  is  the  doctrine  that  matter  is  endued  with 
life,  that  the  world  has  a  soul  that  works  out  the  shapes, 
forms,  motions,  and  life  observed  in  nature. 

The  universe  is  its  own  cause. 

Hylozoism  is  not  unlike  Pantheism. 

It  contravenes  Theism  in  its  denial  of  a  personal  and 
eternal  God  who  is  extramundane  and  supramundane,  the 
Creator  and  judge  of  men. 

Section  IV.    Materialism. 

1.  Materialism  denies  the  reality  of  spirit,  ignores 
the  distinction  between  matter  and  mind,  accounts  for 
all  mental  and  spiritual  phenomena  as  the  properties 
and  functions  of  matter.  One  says,  "The  brain  se- 
cretes thought  as  the  liver  secretes  bile."  Brain  has 
fibers  of  thinking  as  the  legs  have  fibers  of  motion. 

In  Materialism  there  is  no  God,  devil,  angel,  or 
human  soul;  no  heaven,  no  hell,  no  immortality  but 
the  persistence  of  matter  and  force. 

—25— 


2.     Objections  to  Materialism. 

(a)  Our  own  consciousness  assures  us  that  we  are 
more  than  mere  matter.  We  know  ourselves  to  be 
different  from  and  better  than  stone  or  tree.  Our 
whole  moral  nature  with  its  sense  of  rig^ht  and  wrong 
and  moral  accountability  protests  against  materialism. 
Our  conceptions  of  eternity  and  immortality  resent 
the  assertion  that  the  grave  ends  all.  Man's  mental 
and  spiritual  nature  finds  no  adequate  end  in  death. 

(b)  All  experience  and  observation  show  that  life 
can  only  come  from  previously  existing  life,  therefore 
the  life  of  this  world  has  a  living  cause.  No  sponta- 
neous generation  has  ever  been  prbven. 

There  is  a  bridg"eless  chasm  between  dead  matter 
and  living"  personality. 

(c)  All  the  evidence  of  intellig'ent  design  and  pur- 
pose in  the  world  contradict  a  blind  materialism. 

(d)  Materialists  assert  that  as  muscular  action  is 
attended  by  heat,  and  nervous  energ-y  is  attended  by 
heat,  and  even  thought  is  attended  by  the  production 
of  heat,  therefore  all  alike  are  only  physical  force  and 
there  is  no  need  to  assume  a  vital  or  spiritual  sub- 
stance to  account  for  them. 

Admitting  the  concomitant  heat  in  each  action, 
what  directs  the  physical  force  and  nervous  energy 
into  lines  of  purposeful,  designing  and  premeditated 
action?  Can  phj^sical  force  of  any  kind  display  rea- 
son, purpose,  design? 

Though  thought  be  attended  bj^  heat,  it  does  not 
folloAV  that  thought  and  heat  are  identical  or  that 
correlation  of  these  two  forces  is  possible. 

(e)  Materialists  assert  that  life  depends  upon  the 
proper  adjustment,  proportion  and  chemical  combina- 
tion of  material  particles,  that  the  difference  between 
dead  and  living  protoplasm  is  a  matter  of  combina- 
tion. But  it  is  just  as  confidently  asserted  on  the  other 
hand  that  living  protoplasm  is  exactly  identical  with 
dead  protoplasm  so  far  as  its  chemistrj^  is  concerned. 

Therefore  that  which  makes  them  differ  is  not 
their  chemistry.  Life  is  not  a  matter  of  chemical 
combination  nor  of  material  arrangement  of  any  kind, 

(f)  Materialism  seeks  vindication  as  reducing  the 
world  to  a  unit^^  Some  kind  of  Monism  has  been  the 
goal  of  philosophy,  and  a  materialistic  monism  claims 
to  satisi^y  the  demand.  But  the  materialistic  monist 
has  failed  to  justify  his  claims.    In  reducing  the  world 

—26— 


and  its  life  to  the  unity  of  matter  he  is  met  with  the 
fact  that  matter  itself  is  not  a  unity.  There  are  about 
70  elements  in  matter.  The  materialist  must  reduce 
all  matter  to  one  element  to  prove  a  monistic  philoso- 
phy. But  even  if  he  could  do  this  he  could  get  no 
farther  than  his  one  element  in  accounting-  for  the 
variety  in  the  world's  form  and  life;  for  one  element 
cannot  combine  with  itself  to  produce  something 
different.  If  he  should  reduce  all  to  two  elements  the 
combination  of  the  two  might  give  rise  to  a  third  or 
more;  but  then  there  would  be  duality  and  not  unity. 

The  materialist  must  also  reckon  with  force.  If 
matter  is  the  ultimate  principle,  is  force  the  result  of 
matter?  and  the  materialist  must  say  yes.  If  then 
matter  as  the  ultimate  principle  gives  rise  to  force, 
it  g-ives  somehing  which  as  a  unity  it  does  not  possess 
which  is  unthinkable. 

But  if  as  many  say,  matter  is  the  result  of  force 
then  materialistic  monism  vanishes  in  favor  of  a 
dynamic  monism. ' 

Section  V.     Pantheism. 

1.  Pantheism  is  derived  from  Pan — 'all  and  Theos 
—God. 

Pantheism  signifies  that  God  is  all  and  all  is  God. 

It  is  further  expresesd  by  "hen  theos  estin" — God 
is  one.  Nothing  exists  out  of  God.  God  comprises 
all  in  his  (or  its)  own  existence. 

Pantheism  is  briefly  summarized  thus: — 
In  the  eternity  of  the  past  existed  a  something 
designated  Being;  impersonal,  unconscious,  with  no 
power  of  will  or  choice,  neither  matter  nor  spirit,  but 
having  the  potentiality  of  both.  This  Being  devel- 
oped by  the  law  of  necessity  into  the  universe  as  it  is, 
and  has  been,  and  will  continue  to  develop  ad  infin- 
itum. It  has  come  to  its  highest  development  and 
reached  consciousness  in  man.  The  universe  is  God, 
and  God  is  the  universe,  and  man  is  the  highest  exist- 
ence-form of  God.  There  is  no  personal  God  aside 
from  personality  in  man.  All  individual  forms  rise 
up  from  this  Being  and  disappear  into  it  again,  as  the 
waves  of  the  sea  rise  to  form  and  lose  their  individual 
existence  in  the  waters  of  the  ocean  and  go  on  form- 
ing new  waves  of  the  same  substance.  There  is  there- 
fore no  personal  immortality.  Man  appears  for  a  brief 
time  and  loses  himself  in  the  great  universe  of  Being. 

—27— 


His  substance  may  enter  into  other  beings  and  that  is 
all  the  future  he  has  bej^ond  the  grave. 

Pantheism  conceives  of  the  universe  as  but  one 
substance  with  the  two  attributes  of  extension  and 
thoug-ht.  All  material  things  are  this  substance  in 
extension,  and  all  immaterial  things  are  the  same  sub- 
stance under  the  category  of  cog'nition.  The  physical 
world  is  one  aspect  of  this  substance,  the  mental 
world  is  the  other  aspect  of  it. 

In  the  development  of  the  uni\'erse  it  is  both  cause 
and  effect. 

Pantheism  underlies  the  old  Hindu  philosoph3\  It 
was  revived  in  Europe  by  Spinoza  about  1650,  ran  its 
course  through  Fichte,  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  Schleier- 
macher  etc.  and  has  somewhat  tinged  some  modern 
theology. 

2.     Objections  to  Pantheism. 

(a)  Pantheism  assumes  the  existence  of  the  eter- 
nal something;  but  offers  no  proof  of  its  existence,  and 
no  proof  of  what  it  is. 

(b)  It  makes  personality  proceed  from  imperson- 
ality. 

■If  personalitj'  is  a  pre-eminent  virtue,  the  panthe- 
ist's God  out  of  which  all  things  arise,  is  less  than  the 
sentient  beings  of  this  world. 

(c)  If  God  is  impersonal  we  can  neither  love  nor 
pray  to  such  a  God,  and  religion  is  an  unreality. 

(d)  Pantheism's  Absolute  Being  is  not  absolute  at 
all,  because  deficient  in  personalitj^ 

(e)  Personality'  is  not,  as  Pantheism  says,  a  lim- 
itation to  being,  and  therefore  impossible  to  the  in- 
finite. 

Personality  does  not  depend  on  the  contraposition 
of  the  non-ego;  but  the  personal  ego  must  have  real 
existence  before  there  is  anj^  contraposition  of  the 
non-ego. 

(f)  Pantheism  reduces  the  universe  to  the  law  of 
necessity,  and  thus  destroys  all  free  agency. 

Spinoza  sa^^s:  "The  totality  of  finite  objects  is 
posited  in  the  Essence  of  God  and  not  in  his  Will." 

All  development  is  by  necessity  and  not  through 
purpose. 

(g)  If  God  is  all,  then  all  the  evil  of  the  world  is 
as  much  a  part  of  God  as  the  good;  and  as  all  things 
come  by  a  law  of  necessity',  the  evil  is   a  necessity. 

—28— 


This  blots  out  all  distinction  of  right  and  wrong-,  and 
destro3^s  morality  in  the  world. 

(h)  It  seems  most  reasonable  to  believe  that 
where  there  is  causation  there  is  volition,  and  where 
there  is  volition  there  is  life,  intelligence  and  person- 
ality. 


Chapter  IV.    Anti-Christian  Theories. 
Section  I.     Deism. 

1.  Deism  admits  that  there  is  a  personal  God, 
that  he  created  the  world  and  impressed  on  it  the  laws 
that  govern  it.  Having  done  this  God  withdrew  from 
the  world  and  leaves  it  to  the  reign  of  natural  law. 

There  is  no  revelation,  no  miracle,  no  incarnation, 
no  super-natural  manifestation,  no  intervention  of 
God  in  the  affairs  of  men,  no  providence,  no  control. 
God  has  nothing  more  to  do  with  the  world  that  he 
has  made. 

2.  Objections  to  Deisni. 

(a)  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  God  would  make 
a  world  and  not  care  for  the  world  that  he  has  made. 

All  nature,  from  the  farthest  reach  of  the  tele- 
scope to  the  deepest  research  of  the  microscope,  ex- 
hibits the  painstaking  care  with  which  God  made  the 

world.  That  he  should  not  care  for  it  contradicts 
all  our  notions  of  the  fitness  of  things. 

(b)  All  evidence  of  an  overruling  providence,  all 
sense  of  responsibility  for  human  conduct,  all  proof 
of  revelation,  stands  opposed  to  Deism. 

(c)  It  is  subversive  of  all  morality  to  deny  that 
God  is  a  moral  governor.  The  lives  of  Voltaire  and 
Thomas  Paine  bear  testimony. 

3.  History  of  Deism. 

Lord  Herbert  (1648)  may  be  regarded  as  the 
founder  of  English  Deism.  He  held  a  much  higher 
and  better  form  of  infidelity  than  appeared  in  the  fol- 
lowing century.  His  was  a  mixture  of  truth  and  error. 
He  believed  in  God,  piety,  repentance  and  pardon  as 
the  result  of  repentance,  rewards  and  punishments  in 
this  world  and  the  next;  but  repudiated  a  written 
revelation  and  distinctive  Christianity  in  the  incarna- 
tion and  atonement  of  Christ. 

—29— 


After  Lord  Herbert,  Deism  ran  the  gamut  of 
steady  deterioration,  throug-h  the  materialistic  Hobbes 
(1679),  Chubb  (1747),  Bolingbroke  (1751),  and  others 
till  it  reached  its  full  development  in  David  Hume 
(1776).  Hume's  system  invalidates  not  only  the  truths 
of  revealed  religion,  but  of  natural  religion  as  well. 

English  Deism  was  followed  by  French  Deism, 
represented  by  Helvetius,  Voltaire,  Rousseau,  Diderot 
and  others. 

French  Deism  was  more  superficial  than  English 
Deism,  though  perhaps  more  brilliant  in  its  literary 
form. 

The  replies  to  Deism  were  many  and  effectual  by 
Richard  Baxter,  Ralph  Cudworth,  Samuel  Clarke, 
John  Conybeare,  Joseph  Butler  in  his  "Analogy,"  Na- 
thaniel Gardner  in  his  "Credibility  of  Gospel  His- 
tory," and  others.  Deism  was  met  and  completely 
routed  by  these  Christtan  apologists. 

Section  II.     Rationalism. 

Rationalism  arose  about  the  middle  of  the  i8th 
century. 

The  philosophy  of  Christian  Wolff  (ob.  1754)  lent  its 
injfiuence  to  the  movement. 

Wolff  himself  was  not  a  rationalist  but  stressed  the 
importance  of  natural  theology,  and  sought  to  show  that 
the  doctrines  of  religion  were  demonstrable  by  reason. 

His  followers  passed  on  to  the  position  that  nothing 
was  to  be  accepted  as  true  but  what  was  demonstrable  by 
reason. 

What  men  considered  demonstrable  by  reason  was  a 
vei"y  variable  quantity'. 

Wolff  held  that  revelation  gave  us  certain  mysteries, 
things  necessary  and  otherwise  unknowable. 

The  moderate  rationalists  held  that  the  Bible  con- 
tained some  supernatural  revelations  but  limited  this  to 
things  approved  by  reason.  This  generally  excluded  mir- 
acles. 

The  radical  or  Deistical  rationalists  denied  all  super- 
natural revelation.  Reimarus  (ob.  1768)  wrote  the  Wolf- 
enbuettel  Fragments  published  by  Lessing  1777,  in  which 
he  calls  for  the  repudiation  of  supernatural  revelation  in 
order  to  rescue  more  securely  natural  religion  and  ethics. 

Observe: 

1.  Rationalism  is  an  effort  to  derive  all  religious 
knowledge  from  reason  as  a  source  instead  of  getting 
it  from  other  sources. 

—30— 


2.  By  reason  is  meant  not  merely  the  process  of 
reasoning  but  all  the  contents  of  the  cognitive  powers, 
whether  innate  ideas  or  a-priori  principles. 

3.  There  are  various  kinds  of  proof,  mathemat- 
ical demonstration,  cnircumstantial  evidence,  cumula- 
tive evidence,  testimon3%  etc. 

4.  What  seems  proof  to  one  man  may  not  seem 
proof  to  another. 

5.  The  testimony  of  honest  men  is  valid  proof 
where  other  forms  of  proof  are  not  available.  The 
doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  Virgin  Birth,  Resurrection  of 
Christ,  etc.  are  received  on  testimony. 

6.  The  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures  are  not  unrea- 
sonable, not  contrary  to  reason  or  contrary  to  known 
truth. 

7.  Christianity  is  rationally  defensible.  We  do 
not  for  a  moment  admit  that  Christianity  cannot  be 
vindicated  in  the  forum  of  the  world's  thought. 

8.  Reason  has  its  proper  place  in  religion,  neither 
revelation  nor  reason  can  dispense  with  the  other. 

Orthodoxy  does  not  repudiate  reason,  only  its 
right  to  pre-establish  religious  truth  from  itself. 

9.  Rationalism  in  denying  revelation  became 
more  irrational  than  the  orthodoxy  that  it  repudiated. 

For  the  irrationality  of  Rationalism  see  Objec- 
tions to  Miracles. 

10.  The  force  of  Rationalism  was  greatly  weak- 
ened by  Kant  (ob.  1804). 

Kant  wrote  his  "Critique  of  Pure  Reason"  to  show 
that  reason  is  not  competent  to  prove  any  religious 
truth.  He  denied  the  value  of  the  Cosmological  and 
Teleological  arguments  and  rested  his  belief  in  God 
and  religious  truth  on  man's  moral  nature. 

As  Kant  sought  to  discredit  our  knowledge  of  an 
outside  world,  his  followers  Fichte  and  Schelling  used 
his  method  to  prove  that  there  was  no  such  world. 
Eventually  Rationalism  gave  way  to  this  idealistic 
Pantheism. 

Section  III.     Christian  Science. 

1.     Statement. 

Christian  Science  is  idealistic  Pantheism. 

It  is  pantheistic  in  its  view  of  God.  "God  is  all 
and  all  is  God."— Science  and  Health. 

It  is  idealistic  in  its  view  of  the  world.  "Matter 
will  be  finally  proven  to  be  nothing  but  mortal  illu- 
sion."— vScience  and  Health. 


It  denies  the  reality  of  matter,  sickness  and  sin. 
It  claims  to  be  Christian  Science;  but  it  is  neither 
scientific  nor  Christian. 

2.     Objections  to  Christian  Science. 

(a)  It  is  unscientific. 

It  denies  the  trustworthiness  of  our  senses.  That 
is  unscientific. 

It  is  not  based  on  facts  established  by  observa- 
tion and  experience;  but  denies  the  most  palpable 
facts,  and  asserts  the  most  monstrous  absurdities  by 
deduction   from  false  premises. 

It  is  speculative  and  not  scientific;  it  comes  by 
its  conclusions  not  by  induction  from  a  collection  of 
facts  but  by  deduction  from  hypothecated  postu- 
lates. 

It  denies  the  reality  of  matter  which  we  can  see, 
feel,  weigh  and  measure,  and  declares  the  belief  in 
matter  to  be  an  illusion  of  mortal  mind.  It  contra- 
dicts our  consciousness  and  observation  in  the  denial 
of  sin,  and  pain,  and  sickness. 

It  will  not  stand  the  test  of  physical  science,  and 
just  as  little  the  test  of  mental  science. 

(b)  It  is  unphilosophic. 

Philosophy's  problem  is  to  answer  the  whence, 
why,  what,  and  whither  of  things. 

Christian  Science  in  denying  the  reality  of  the 
material,  and  the  trustworthiness  of  our  senses  has 
thrown  overboard  the  half  of  human  knowledge.  No 
true  philosophy  can  result  when  half  the  facts  are 
ignored.  It  gives  no  rational  account  of  the  origin  of 
things  nor  of  their  purpose  and  destiny.  Its  philo- 
sophical postulates  are  erroneous,  as  is  seen  in  its  call- 
ing the  infinite  the  all. 

(c)  It  is  un-Christian,   rather  anti-Christian. 

It  denies  the  personality^  of  God  and  makes  God  a 
principle.  Sometimes  indeed  it  speaks  as  if  God  were 
personal,  but  its  favorite  term  is  principle.  It  says: 
God  is  good,  God  is  truth,  God  is  love.  But  it  goes 
further  and  adds:  Good  is  God,  truth  is  God,  love  is 
God.  Thus  it  identifies  these  attributes  with  God  and 
deifies  the  attributes. 

It  denies  the  creation  of  the  material  universe.  It 
denies  the  creation  of  man.  Man  is  co-existent  with 
God,  has  no  actual  being  apart  from  God.  This  is  its 
element  of  Pantheism.  O'n  this  basis,  too,  it  is  de- 
clared that  man  cannot  sin. 

—32— 


It  denies  the  incarnation  in  the  Christian  sense. 
Mary  did  not  g-ive  birth  to  an  actual  body  but  a  spirit- 
ual idea,  an  idea  produced  by  her  communion  with 
the  divine  Principle. 

It  denies  the  Deity  of  Christ  except  as  all  men  are 
divine. 

It  denies  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 

It  denies  the  atonement  of  Christ.  Some  one  said: 
"What  becomes  of  the  atonement  when  suffering" 
which  was  not  suffering  (only  a  *g"reat  illusion'),  in  a 
body  which  was  not  a  body  (only  a  'mortal  belief), 
was  offered  in  expiation  for  sin  which  was  not  sin?" 

It  denies  that  salvation  is  by  the  death  and  blood 
and  substitution  of  Christ.  What  rig'ht  has  it  to  call 
itself  Christian? 

rt  puts  no  fair  interpretation  on  the  Scriptures. 

It  makes  Mrs.  Eddj^  supplementary  to  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  Scriptures,  setting"  forth  Science  and  Health 
as  the  hig-hest  development  and  interpretation  of 
Christian  truth, 

Mrs.  Eddy  describes  the  Bible  as:  legend,  fable, 
myth,  full  of  mistakes,  full  of  thousands  of  errors,  a 
compilation  of  human  documents,  etc.  etc. 

But  she  describes  Science  and  Health  as:  revealed 
truth,  the  perfect  word  of  God,  truth  without  mixture 
of  human  error,  divine  teaching,  infallible  teachiri^, 
etc. 

Christian  Science  denies  the  true  God  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  he  has  sent,  and  is  therefore  a  false 
religion  and  an  Anti-Christ. 

Section  IV.     Pessimism. 

Pessimism  is  the  philosophy  that  regards  the 
world  and  life  as  essentially  evil.  It  holds  that  the 
world,  if  not  the  worst  that  can  be,  is  at  least  suffi- 
ciently evil  to  be  worse  than  none  at  all. 

Its  distinguishing  characteristic  may  be  expressed 
by  the  formula: — "To  live  is  to  desire,  to  desire  is  to 
want,  to  want  is  to  suffer,  and  therefore  to  live  is  to 
suffer."  It  adopts  the  words  of  Sophocles: — "Never  to 
have  been  born  is  the  happiest  fate  and  the  next  best 
thing  to  die  young";  or  the  words  of  Byron: — 

"Count  o'er  the  joys  thine  hours  have  seen; 
Count  o'er  thy  days  from  anguish  free. 
And  know,  whatever  thou  hast  been, 
'Tis  something  better  not  to  be." 

—33— 


The  hig'her  grades  of  life  suffer  the  most  and  the 
lower  the  least.  The  lowest  animals  are  therefore 
happier  than  man.  Ignorance,  in  one  respect,  is  pref- 
erable to  knowledge  as  providing  less  ground  for  ex- 
quisite suffering.  However  if  men  were  not  so  ignor- 
ant and  knew  better  what  life  really  is,  they  would 
will  not  to  live;  they  would  refuse  to  preserve  them- 
selves, and  to  propagate  their  species,  and  would  wel- 
come death  as  the  highest  good. 

This  philosophy  was  exploited  by  the  German 
Schopenhauer,  1788- 1860.  His  system  is  tinctured  with 
Pantheistic  Buddhism.  He  says:  "Brahma  is  said  to 
have  produced  the  world  by  a  kind  of  fall  or  mistake; 
and  in  order  to  atone  for  his  folly  he  is  bound  to  re- 
main in  it  himself,  until  he  works  out  his  redemption. 
As  an  account  of  the  origin  of  things  that  is  admira- 
ble." 

Again,  'According  to  the  doctrine  of  Buddhism, 
the  world  came  into  being  as  the  result  of  some  inex- 
plicable disturbance  in  the  heavenly  calm  of  Nirvana. 
Subsequently  by  a  series  of  moral  errors  the  world 
became  gradually  worse  and  worse  until  it  assumed 
the  dismal  aspect  it  wears  today.    Excellent." 

He  does  not  accord  so  much  excellence  to  the 
Biblical  account,  but  says:  "In  its  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  the  world  Judaism  is  inferior  to  any  other 
form  of  religious  doctrine  professed  by  a  civilized 
nation." 

Schopenhauer  begins  one  of  his  chapters  thus: — 
"Unless  suffering  is  the  direct  and  immediate  object  of 
life,  our  existence  must  entirely  fail  of  its  aim."  The 
aim  of  existence  is  to  suffer  and  the  suffering  is  forced 
on  us  by  a  malevolent  necessity. 

Schopenhauer's  philosophy  is  destructive  and  im- 
moral. He  boldly  advocates  the  right  and  virtue  of 
suicide,  though  he  seems  not  to  have  had  the  courage 
or  consistency  to  practice  it. 

In  another  chapter  he  advocates  polygamy  and 
concubinage,  and  declares  that  woman  should  not  be 
intrusted  with  property  or  the  management  of  affairs, 
but  made  subject  to  and  the  servant  of  man. 

Perhaps  the  most  charitable  thing  we  can  say  of 
Schopenhauer's  philosophy  is  that  it  seems  to  be  the 
product  of  a  disordered  mind.  Both  his  mental  and 
moral  make-up  must  have  possessed  a  peculiar  twist 
to  have  produced  such  a  monstrosity.     His  work  is  so 

—34— 


irrational  as  to  refute  itself.  We  may  add  that  his 
life  was  like  his  philosophy. 

Yet  monstrous  as  it  was  Schopenhauer's  philoso- 
phy was  taken  up  by  others  especially  by  Von  Hart- 
mann,  of  whom  Strauss  remarks:  "Von  Hartmann 
says  that  this  world  is  so  bad  that  none  would  have 
been  better;  Von  Hartmann's  philosophy  is  part  of  the 
world;  and  as  such  it  is  so  bad  that  it  would  have  been 
better  if  it  had  never  been." 

For  an  able  discussion  and  refutation  of  Pessi- 
mism, see  Prof.  Flint's  "Anti-Theistic  Theories." 

Section  V.    The  Doctrine  of  a  Finite  God. 

There  is  a  current  view  that  God  is  a  limited  be- 
ing-,  and  himself  subject  to  a  process  of  evolution — 
that  God  is  developing  under  the  same  laws  or  similar 
laws,  as  the  universe. 

The  fact  of  evil  in  the  world  has  led  some  minds 
to  a  belief  in  a  finite  God,  and  this  belief  has  gotten 
new  impetus  from  the  world  war. 

John  Stuart  Mill  concluded,  from  the  presence  of 
evil  in  the  world,  that  God  cannot  be  both  good  and 
omnipotent.  If  good  he  cannot  be  omnipotent,  and  if 
omnipotent  he  cannot  be  good.  Either  he  is  malevo- 
lent in  permitting  evil,  or  helpless  to  prevent  it.  In 
either  case  he  is  limited;  either  in  goodness  or  in 
power. 

Prof.  William  James,  philosopher  and  psycholo- 
gist of  Harvard  University,  declares  for  a  finite  God; 
and  supposes  that  this  finite  God  of  the  known  uni- 
verse is  subordinate  to  a  greater  and  all-inclusive 
Absolute. 

The  brilliant  French  philosopher  Bergson,  though 
not  so  definitely  declarative  on  this  subject,  seems 
open  to  this  interpretation  by  those  who  seek  to  carry 
out  his  "Creative  Evolution"  with  its  "vital  thrust"  to 
its  legitimate  conclusions. 

George  Bernard  Shaw,  H.  G.  Wells,  R.  H.  Dotterer 
and  others  fall  into  the  same  class. 

In  regard  to  this  we  remark: — 

1.  Neither  God's  goodness  nor  power  is  limited 
by  the  fact  of  evil.  God  being  infinitely  good  and 
omnipotent  may  have  reasons  for  the  permission  of 
evil,  though  these  reasons  are  to  us  inscrutable. 

2.  The  imperfection  of  the  finite  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  imperfection  in  God.  Imperfection  belongs 
to  the  sphere  of  the  finite.    Moreover  the  freedom  of  a 

—.35— 


rational  creature  makes  its  moral  imperfection  at  least 
a  possibility.  And  again  the  government  of  the  world 
shows  that  God  allows  large  liberty  to  the  created 
personality. 

3.  It  would  seem  to  be  a  necessity  of  thought 
that  the  infinite  is  the  logical  corollary  of  the  finite. 
We  are  impelled  to  the  conclusion  that  there  must  be 
an  infinite.  The  infinite  bounds  and  limits  the  finite. 
Our  very  limitations  compel  us  to  recognize  an  unlim- 
ited. 

4.  A  finite  and  developing  Deity  would  be  neces- 
sarily less  in  each  preceding  age;  and  diminishing  to- 
ward a  past  eternity  would  ultimately  be  a  negligible 
minimum,  or  nothing.  Then  the  question  of  a  begin- 
ning being  raised  we  are  involved  in  mental  difficult- 
ies and  absurdities  that  are  logically  intolerable.  An 
uncaused  progression  is  unthinkable,  but  an  eternal 
first  cause  satisfies  all  rational  requirements. 

5.  A  developing  universe  is  satisfactorily  account- 
ed for  by  an  infinite  and  immanent  God;  but  what 
can  account  for  a  developing  Deity  except  some  other 
super-divine  immanent  Infinite?  And  what  have  we 
gained? 

6.  This  view  of  God  is  too  nearly  akin  to  an 
evolutionary  Pantheism,  the  sin  of  which  system  is 
that  it  blots  out  all  freedom,  all  morality,  and  event- 
ually all  personality  for  the  individual.  Imperfection, 
disease,  sin,  crime  are  all  a  fatalistic  divine  develop- 
ment, equally  necessary  and  equally  God.  Some  one 
has  said:  "In  this  system  everything  is  God  but  God 
himself."  The  doctrine  of  a  developing  God  lends  it- 
self too  much  to  the  submerging  of  God  in  the  uni- 
verse, and  the  universe  in  God. 


Chapter  V.    The  Nature  of  God. 
Section  I.     The  Oneness  of  God. 

1.  The  oneness  of  God  is  indicated  by  the  law  of 
parsimony.  It  is  a  law  of  reason  not  to  assign  more 
causes  than  necessary.  If  one  first  cause  is  sufficient 
we  may  assume  that  this  is  all. 

2.  The  universe  is  one  system  indicating  one 
designer. 

-36- 


3.  Our  moral  accountability  leads  us  to  feel  re- 
sponsible to  some  one  who  is  our  Creator. 

4.  The  Scriptures  constantly  declare  that  there  is 
but  one  God. 

Section  II.    The  Personality  of  God. 

1.     Proof  of  the  personality  of  God. 

(a)  All  the  arguments  for  God's  existence  are 
also  proofs  of  his  personality.  The  efficient  cause  of 
the  world  could  not  be  less  than  a  person.  The  world 
exhibits  intellig"ence  and  purpose  and  therefore  re- 
quires an  intellig"ent  and  desig'ning-  Creator.  And  an 
intellig"ent  Creator  must  be  a  person. 

(b)  Our  own  personality  is  proof  of  a  personal 
God.  The  product  is  not  greater  than  its  cause.  If  we 
have  personality  the  cause  of  our  personality  must 
likewise  be  a  person.  If  there  is  in  us  intelligence, 
will,  self-consciousness  our  Creator  must  possess  the 
same.  We  know  ourselves  as  persons;  we  know  our- 
selves as  finite  causes;  it  is  therefore  in  line  with  our 
own  experience  to  refer  causation  to  personal  agency. 

(c)  There  is  further  proof  in  the  moral  nature  of 
man.  The  fact  that  man  is  incurably  religious,  the 
universality  of  religious  conviction,  the  depth  and 
strength  of  religious  sentiment,  all  require  the  fact  of 
a  personal  God. 

Man's  religious  nature  is  but  a  mockery,  a  tanta- 
lizing deception,  if  there  be  no  God  to  whom  men  may 
look  up  and  whom  they  may  revere.  Augustine  voices 
the  universal  human  heart  when  he  says:  "O  God, 
thou  hast  made  us  for  thyself  and  we  cannot  rest  until 
we  rest  in  thee."  Man  cannot  worship  a  nonentity,  or 
pray  to  a  principle,  or  feel  responsibility  to  a  material 
force. 

The  constitution  of  man's  nature  demands  a  per- 
sonal God. 

(d)  The  Scriptures  represent  God  by  the  personal 
pronouns  and  put  them  in  his  mouth:  "I  am  that  I 
am." 

(e)  Joseph  Cook  lays  down  the  following  points 
as  to  the  personality  of  God: 

(i)   "There    cannot    be     thought    without    a 
thinker. 

(2)  There  is  thought  in  the  universe. 

(3)  There  is   therefore   a  thinker  in   the   uni- 
verse. 

(4)  But  a  thinker  is  a  person. 


(s)   Therefore  there   is   a  personal  thinker  in 
the  universe." 

2.     Objections  to  the  Personality  of  God. 

Materialism,  Pantheism  and  Agnosticism  deny  or 
cast  doubt  on  the  personality  of  God. 

Some  specific  arguments  are  as  follows: 

(a)   That  we  cannot  know  reality. 

It  is  said  that  all  knowledge  of  the  external  world 
comes  through  the  senses;  that  we  perceive  only  phe- 
nomena, and  not  things  themselves;  that  therefore  we 
have  no  certain  knowledge  of  any  thing  ab  extra.  If 
phenomena  do  not  misrepresent  the  thing  itself,  at 
least  we  have  no  certain  assurance  of  their  similarity. 

Kant,  Spencer  and  other  agnostics  denied  the 
trustworthiness  of  our  senses  and  therefore  of  our 
knowledge. 

Thus  the  mind  cannot  reach  assurance  of  any- 
thing outside  of  itself;  if  indeed  its  own  intuitive  prin- 
ciples are  not  as  much  at  fault  as  its  perceptions;  so 
that  the  mind  clothes  the  not-self  with  conceptions  of 
its  own  fabrication. 

This  doctrine  of  the  relativity  of  knowledge,  as  it 
is  called,  has  been  used  to  oppose  the  belief  in  the 
personality  of  God. 

Answer: 

If  all  knowledge  is  as  uncertain  as  this  philosophy 
asserts,  then  this  philosophy  is  as  uncertain  as  the 
rest.  "Why  should  we  believe  an  agnosticism  that 
renders  all  belief  impossible,  including  a  belief  in  the 
fundamental  principles  of  that  agnosticism?"^ — Snow- 
don. 

Some  one  has  said  that  "such  denial  of  knowledge 
must  denj^  its  own  denial,"  that  "agnosticism  commits 
suicide  and  then  strangel^^  keeps  on  talking." 

This  theory  destroys  all  knowledge. 

If  the  human  mind  is  fundamentally  a  perversive 
organ  of  knowledge  then  no  knowledge  is  possible, 
and  every  human  being  is  deluded.  In  this  connection 
several  things  must  be  firmly  held: 

First,  That  the  mind  is  a  true  instrument  of  know- 
ledge. 

Second,  That  our  senses  are  sufficiently  trust- 
worthy for  the  acquirement  of  knowle'dge. 

Third,  That  phenomena  represent  reality,  and 
that  we  know  things  by  means  of  phenomena. 

-38- 


Fourth,  That  finite  knowledg-e  is  true  knowledge 
though  finite.  The  human  mind  can  know  God  to  the 
extent  of  its  comprehension. 

(b)  A  second  objection  to  the  personality  of  God 
is  that  personality  is  limitation  and  limitation  is  in- 
consistent with  infinity.  It  is  said  that  there  can  be 
no  personality  without  self-consciousness,  and  that 
this  implies  the  distinction  between  the  self  and  the 
not-self,  between  the  subject  and  the  object. 

Thus  personality,  by  its  very  constitution,  is  lim- 
ited by  the  not-self  over  against  the  self,  and  the 
object  over  against  the  subject;  and  that  such  limita- 
tion cannot  belong  to  an  infinite  being. 

Answer: 

This  argument  proceeds  upon  the  false  assump- 
tion that  the  infinite  is  the  all,  and  anything  that  is 
not  God  impinges  on  his  infinitude.  That  is  the  fun- 
damental postulate  of  Pantheism. 

The  fact  is  that  the  lack  of  personality  is  a  limit- 
ation rather  than  the  possession  of  it.  In  the  realm 
of  our  knowledge  and  experience  it  is  the  unintelli- 
gent, non-moral  and  unconscious  world  that  suffers 
limitation.  The  possession  of  personality  enlarges  the 
scope  of  being  and  the  exercise  of  its  powers. 

The  distinction  of  self  and  the  not-self  is  not  a 
limitation  to  a  being  purely  spirtual.  The  objection 
in  question  applies  to  the  spiritual  realm  the  condi- 
tions of  the  material. 

Section  III.    Substance  and  Attributes. 

1.  Substance  is  that  in  which  certain  attributes 
inhere. 

Substance  has  being,   power  and  permanence. 

There  are  two  substances  and  only  two:  matter 
and  spirit.  The  world  is  matter;  God,  angels  and 
souls  of  men  are  spirit. 

2.  The  substance  of  God  is  pure  spirit  unmixed 
with  matter.  The  Confession  of  Faith  says:  "with- 
out bodily  parts  or  passions."  When  we  speak  of 
God  as  spirit  we  refer  to  his  substance  in  which  his 
attributes  inhere. 

When  we  speak  of  God  as  a  spirit  we  refer  to 
him  as  a  personal  being.  When  we  speak  of  the 
essence  of  God  we  mean  all  that  is  essential  tO'  his 
being  as  God,  i.e.,  substance  plus  attributes. 

—39— 


3.  His  substance  is  spirit;  his  attributes  are  the 
qualities  or  properties  of  that  substance,  such  as 
Eternity,  Infinity,  Omnipresence,  Omnipotence,  HoH- 
ness,  Love,  Immutability,  Sovereignty,  etc. 

4.  We  assign  to  God  the  properties  of  spirit,  and 
deny  to  him  the  properties  of  matter. 

When  the  Scriptures  speak  of  God's  eye,  ear,  hand, 
etc.,  thej^  speak  metaphorically.  This  is  called  anthro- 
pomorphism. 

5.  The  attributes  of  God  are  disting-uishing" 
marks  of  His  being,  a  few  of  which  we  consider  as 
follows: 

(a)  Omnipresence.  God  fills  all  space  and  per- 
vades all  things  with  His  invisible  and  immaterial 
substance. 

The  interstellar  ether  may  help  our  conceptions  of 
His  infinity  and  immanence,  but  is  not  a  perfect  illus- 
tration. 

The  ether  is  part  here  and  part  among  the  stars. 
Not  so  God.  God  is  incapable  of  partition; — not  part 
of  him  here  and  part  there;  but  the  whole  undivided 
essence  of  God  present  at  every  point  of-  space,  at 
every  moment  of  time. 

Though  equally  omnipresent  to  all  creatures  at 
all  times,  3^et  He  makes  special  manifestation  of  Him- 
self at  certain  times  and  is  then  said  to  be  specially  or 
particularly  present;  as  to  Moses  at  the  burning  bush, 
or  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  His 
name. 

The  infinitude  of  God  is  misunderstood  by  the 
Christian  Scientist  who  says  that  there  can  be  only 
one  infinite;  and  as  God  is  infinite  there  can  nothing 
exist  but  God.  That  would  be  true  if  God  were  a 
material  being.  This  is  a  fundamental  error  of  Chris- 
tian Science. 

(b)  Eternity.  "From  everlasting  to  everlasting 
thou  art  God.  He  has  existed  from  all  eternity  and 
exists  to  all  eternity" — no  beginning,  no  end. 

All  the  past  and  all  the  future  is  as  vividly  present 
to  the  divine  mind  as  the  present  moment. 

There  is  no  succession  of  thoughts  in  the  divine 
mind;  nor  succession  of  feelings,  or  purposes.  All 
God's  thoughts,  feelings  and  purposes  are  from  eter- 
nity. 

Doctor  Hodge  says  that  with  God  all  duration  is 
an  eternal  now;  which  might  seem  to  obliterate  all 
distinction  of  past,  present  and  future. 

—40— 


But  the  divine  mind  must  mark  the  distinctions 
of  past,  present  and  future  matters  of  fact;  though  all 
things  may  be  equally  vivid  to  His  thought. 

Nothing  can  be  added  to  God's  knowledge,  feel- 
ing or  purpose.  He  is  therefore  immutable — the  same 
yesterday,  today  and  forever. 

Since  God  is  eternal,  He  must  be  self-existent,  and 
absolutely  independent  of  all  other  beings  as  to  His 
purpose,  action  or  being. 

(c)  Sovereignty.  This  is  His  absolute  right  to 
govern  and  dispose  of  all  creatures  as  He  pleases. 

His  sovereignty  rests  on: — 
His  infinite  superiority. 

His  absolute  ownership,  by  right  of  creation. 
The  absolute  dependence  of  all  things  on  Him 

for  their  being  and  continuance. 

Section  IV.    Transcendence  and  Immanence. 

1.  God  is  transcendent,  which  is  sometimes  ex- 
pressed by  saying,  He  is  supramundane  or  extramun- 
dane. 

God  is  above  and  apart  from  the  world. 

Hegel  denied  the  transcendence  of  God,  saying: 
"God  is  not  a  spirit  beyond  the  stars.  He  is  the  spirit 
in  all  spirit." 

(a)  He  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  universe 
as  is  done  by  Pantheism  and  Christian  Science. 

(b)  He  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  totality  of  which 
the  universe  is  a  part,  i.e.,  sort  of  a  two-faced  unity. 

(c)  He  is  not  related  to  the  universe  as  soul  to 
body. 

(d)  A  cause  and  its  effect  cannot  be  one  and  the 
same,  therefore  we  hold  to  the  transcendence  of  God. 
Subject  and  object  implies  a  distinction,  therefore  we 
do  not  confound  Him  with  the  world  which  He  has 
made  and  which  is  the  object  of  His  providence  and 
care.    A  man  is  more  than  this  work;  so  is  God. 

(e)  God's  love  to  men.  His  forgiveness  of  sin,  and 
man's  sense  of  responsibility  rest  on  the  transcendence 
of  God.  When  transcendence  is  lost  man's  sense  of 
sin  and  accountability  vanish,  as  in  the  Pantheistic 
and  semi-Pantheistic  systems. 

2.  God  is  immanent  or  intramundane. 

(a)  He  is  not  only  above  and  separate  from  the 
physical  universe,  but  He  pervades  all  things  with  His 
mystical  invisible  substance.  This  is  more  than  omni- 
present law  and  power;  it  is  immanent  personality. 

—41— 


(b)  Man  works  upon  matter  from  without.  God 
can  and  does  work  from  within.  Whatever  develop- 
ment there  is  in  the  universe  ilkistrates  God's  working 
from  within. 

Man  builds  a  house  or  ship  by  working"  from  with- 
out.    God  builds  a  tree  by  working"  from  within. 

(c)  We  must  not  stress  the  transcendence  of  God 
so  much  as  to  make  Him  a  mechanical  God;  nor  stress 
the  immanence  of  God  so  much  as  to  lose  Him  in  the 
laws  of  nature. 

(d)  We  must  distinguish  between  God  immanent 
in  the  universe  and  God  identical  with  the  universe; 
the  latter  is  Pantheism. 

(e)  W.  Newton  Clarke  in  his  Christian  Doctrine 
of  God,  says: 

"At  present  it  is  apparent  that  the  universe  oper- 
ates or  is  operated  from  within.  The  forces  that  are 
found  at  work  are  resident  forces.  The  universe  has 
the  appearance  of  a  self-working-  sj^stem.  Not  only  its 
vastness,  but  its  internal  self-sufficiency,  forbids  us  to 
think  of  it  as  controlled  from  without. 

If  God  is  the  operant  force  of  the  great  system, 
and  it  is  operated  from  within,  then  certainly  He  is 
within,  with  His  operative  will  and  energy." 

Section  V.     A  Trinity  of  Persons. 

1.  The  Godhead  is  a  trinity" — Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit. 

(a)  Shorter  Catechism  6.  How  many  persons  are 
there  in  the  Godhead? 

There  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Fa- 
ther, Son  and  H0I3'  Ghost;  and  these  three  are  one 
God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory. 

This  is  a  matter  of  revelation,  we  could  not  know 
it  otherwise. 

(b)  Proof. 

The  personal  pronouns  are  applied  to  each  of  the 
persons  of  the  Trinity.  The  Father  addresses  the  Son, 
the  Son  addresses  the  Father. 

The  Apostolic  benediction  plainl^^  implies  the  dis- 
tinction of  three  persons. 

The  baptismal  formula  also  designates  the  three 
persons.  One  person  of  the  Trinity  sends  another. 
The  Father  sends  the  Son  and  the  Father  and  Son 
send  the  Spirit.  Hence  the  distinction  of  three  persons 
is  plain.  Opposed  to — Arianism,  Sabellianism,  Unitar- 
ianism. 

—42— 


2.  The  Son  and  Spirit  are  equally  God  with  the 
Father. 

The  Son  and  Spirit  are  not  less  eternal  and  poAver- 
ful  than  the  Father.  All  are  equally  eternal,  equally 
powerful,  equally  glorious  and  equally  God. 

The  Son  is  not  a  creature  as  the  Arians  believed, 
did  not  derive  his  existence  from  the  Father  but  is 
self-existent  from  eternity  together  with  the  Father. 
John  i:i. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  terms  Son  and  Spirit  refer  to  their  relations 
in  the  Godhead,  or  their  mode  of  subsistence,  and  not 
to  their  origination. 

The  deity  of  each  person  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
all  divine  names,  titles,  attributes,  works  and  worship 
are  given  to  each. 

The  deity  of  Christ  is  considered  in  Soteriology 
under  the  head:    The  Redeemer. 

3.  These  three  persons  are  one  God,  a  trinal 
unity. 

The  persons  of  the  Godhead  are  not  as  separate 
from  each  other  as  a  human  person  is  from  every 
other  person. 

(a)  There  is  no  division  of  substance;  not  part  of 
it  the  Father  and  part  of  it  the  Son,  and  another  part 
the  Spirit. 

The  one  undivided,  and  indivisible  substance  is 
common  to  the  three  persons. 

In  other  words  the  substance  is  numerically  one. 

In  our  own  spiritual  substance  it  is  not  one  part 
of  the  mind  that  thinks  and  another  part  that  feels 
and  another  that  wills;  but  the  whole  soul  thinks,  the 
whole  soul  feels,  the  whole  soul  wills. 

(b)  Theological  dogma  asserts  the  unity  or  iden- 
tity of  the  attributes  also,  or  that  the  attributes  are 
common  to  all  the  persons.  Not  three  intelligences, 
three  wills,  etc.;  but  one  intelligence,  one  will,  one 
power  in  the  three  persons. 

The  numerical  oneness  of  substance  and  identity 
of  attributes  is  not  supposed  to  obliterate  the  distinc- 
tions of  personality  and  result  in  only  one  person; 
however  mysterious  and  incomprehensible  to   us. 

(c)  The  distinctions  in  the  persons  lie  in  their 
relations  to  each  other,  and  in  their  offices  and  oper- 
ations in  the  divine  economy. 

—43— 


4.  Relation  and  Offices. 

The  Father  stands  in  a  fatherly  relation  to  the 
Son,  and  the  Son  is  called  the  Only-begotten.  The 
Spirit  proceeds  from  Father  and  Son.  The  word 
beget  or  begotten  as  applied  to  the  Godhead  does  not 
express  a  mode  of  becoming,  but  a  mode  of  existing. 

The  Nicean  and  Athanasian  Creeds  speak  of 
Christ  as  very  God  of  very  God.  This  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  meaning  that  the  substance  of  the  Son 
was  derived  from  the  substance  of  the  Father  instead 
of  being  co-existent  and  co-eternal  with  the  Father. 

5.  Errors  as  to  the  Trinity. 

(a)  The  Arians  denied  the  deity  of  the  Son.  They 
believed  him  to  be  pre-existent  before  the  incarnation 
but  to  be  a  creature,  less  than  God,  greater  than  men 
but  of  different  nature  from  the  Father. 

(b)  The  Semi-Arians  held  that  the  Son  was  of  like 
nature  with  the  Father  but  not  equal. 

The  Arians  expressed  the  distinction  by  the  word 
Heteroousios,  the  Semi-Arians  by  Homoiousios,  the 
orthodox  bj^  Homoousios,  different  nature,  like  nature, 
same  nature. 

(c)  The  Sabellians  held  to  a  modal  trinity  that 
there  were  not  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  but  one 
person  manifesting^  himself  in  three  modes.  In  one 
respect  he  is  Father,  in  another  Son,  and  in  still 
another  Spirit.  This  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament. 

(d)  The  Socinians  and  modern  Unitarians  look  on 
Christ  as  a  mere  man,  a  good  man,  and  a  great  teach- 
er. If  a  good  man  we  may  surely  believe  him  when 
he  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.    Mark  14:61,62. 

6.  The  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity. 

This  is  treated  in  Soteriologj'  under  the  subject, 
The  Redeemer. 

7.  The  Holy  Spirit,  or  Third  Person  of  the 
Trinity. 

The  term  Spirit  is  applied  to  the  third  person  not 
to  differentiate  his  substance  from  that  of  the  Father 
and  Son;  for  all  are  numerically  one  substance  and  all 
equally  spirit.  The  term  Spirit  distinguishes  his  per- 
son. And  spiration  in  regard  to  the  Spirit  corresponds 
to  generation  in  regard  to  the  Son  as  expressing  the 
mode  of  subsistence. 

—44— 


(a)  The  Spirit  is  God. 

Where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  mentioned  in  Scripture 
it  is  plain  that  he  is  regarded  as  God.  He  is  coupled 
with  the  Father  and  Son  in  the  Apostolic  Benediction 
and  the  formula  of  baptism. 

Divine  attributes  are  assig"ned  to  him. 

Divine  worship  is  offered  to  him. 

Divine  works  are  attributed  to  him,  e.g.  inspira- 
tion, regeneration,  sanctification,  etc.  Divine  names 
are  also  applied  to  him  —  Spirit  of  God,  Spirit  of 
Christ,  Spirit  of  His  Son,  Eternal  Spirit,  Spirit  of  Holi- 
ness, Spirit  of  Wisdom,  Spirit  of  Grace,  etc. 

(b)  The  Spirit  is  a  Person. 
Personal  pronouns  are  applied  to  him. 

He  speaks  and  is  spoken  to.  Acts  13:2.  The 
church  has  always  prayed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Agency  is  affirmed  of  him.  He  reveals,  convicts, 
regenerates,  comforts,  seals,  intercedes,  etc.  etc. 

He  bestows  extraordinary  gifts,  as  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  and  at  the  house  of  Cornelius. 

When  we  are  bidden  not  to  grieve,  resist,  and  sin 
against  the  Spirit,  his  personality  is  implied. 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  personality  in  man 
requires  separateness  from  others,  or  distinct  individ- 
uality. But  this  is  not  true  of  the  Godhead  where 
there  is  substantial  unity,  or  oneness  of  substance.  So 
that  personality  as  applied  to  man  only  approximately 
expresses  the  fact  as  applied  to  the  Godhead. 

The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  redemption  is 
treated  in  that  part  of  Soteriology  called  Pneumatol- 
ogy  or  the  Application  of  Redemption. 


Chapter  VI.    The  Decrees  of  God. 
Section  I.     God  has  a  purpose. 

Catechism  7.     What  are  the  decrees  of  God. 

(a)  Involved  in  his  personality. 

(b)  Proved  by  the  Scriptures. 

Is.  14:27.     The  Lord  hath  purposed  and  who  shall  disannul  it? 

Is.  43:13.  Yea  before  the  day  was  I  am  he;  and  there  is  none 
that  can  deliver  out  of  my  hand:  I  will  work  and  who  shall  hinder 
it? 

Is.  46:10.  Declaring  the  end  from  the  beginning  and  from 
ancient  times  the  things  that  are  not  yet  done,  saying:  My  counsel 
shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure. 

—45— 


Dan.  4:35.  He  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of 
heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth;  and  none  can  stay 
his  hand,  etc. 

Acts  15:18.     Known  unto  God  are  all  his  works  from  eternity. 

Acts  17:26.     And  hath  determined  the  times  before  appointed. 

Ephes.  i:ii.  Being  predestinated  according  to  the  purpose  of 
him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will. 

Section  II.    Classified  as 

(a)  Positive.    What  he  does  he  purposed  to  do. 

(b)  Permissive.    What  he  permits  he  purposed  to 
permit. 

Section  III.    God's  purpose  embraces  all  events. 

(a)  All  the  general  course  of  history. 
Acts  17:26. 

(b)  Particular  events. 

Gen.  45:7-8.  God  sent  me  before  you  to  preserve  you  a  poster- 
ity on  the  earth  and  to  save  your  lives — so  now  it  was  not  you  that 
sent  me  but  God. 

Micah  5:2.     The  birth  of  Christ  in  Bethlehem. 

(c)  Good  acts  of  men. 

Ephes.  2:10.  For  we  are  his  workmanship  created  in  Christ 
Jesus  unto  good  works. 

Jno.  15:16.  Ye  have  not  chosen  me  but  I  have  chosen  you  and 
ordained  5^ou   that  j^e  should  go  and  bring  fortli  fruit. 

(d)  Evil  acts  of  men. 

Prov.  16:14.  All  things  hath  the  Lord  wrought  for  their  des- 
tined purpose;  yea  even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil. 

Acts  2:23.  Him  being  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and 
foreknowledge  of  God  ye  have  taken  and  by  wicked  hands  have 
crucified  and  slain. 

Acts  4:27-28.  Against  thy  holy  child  Jesus,  herod  et  al.  were 
gathered  together  to  do  what  thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  predestin- 
ated  to  come   to  pass. 

(e)  So-called  accidental  events. 

Ps.  34:20.     He  keepetli  all  his  bones:  not  one  of  them  is  broken. 

(f)  Means  as  well  as  ends. 

Acts  27:31.     Except  these  abide  in  the  ship  ye  cannot  be  saved. 

2  Thess.  2:13.  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to 
salvation  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the 
truth. 

I  Pet.  1:2.  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the 
Father  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

If  God  chooses  a  man  unto  salvation,  he  chooses 
the  means  to  effect  the  end. 

-4^ 


Section  IV.     The  order  of  the  decrees. 

To  create.  To  permit  the  fall.  To  save.  To  use 
the  necessary  means. 

Section  V.  God's  decree  renders  certain  whatever  is 
decreed. 

1.  True  of  the  positive  decrees. 

2.  True  of  the  permissive  decrees. 

(a)  This  is  hard  to  understand.  Since  the  per- 
missive decree  concerns  only  sinful  acts  of  which 
God  is  not  the  efficient  cause  it  is  hard  to  see  how  per- 
mission makes  them  certain  to  come  to  pass. 

Dr.  Shedd  says  it  is  inexplicable. 

The  most  reasonable  explanation  is  that  the  sin- 
ful^ nature  will  g"o  to  the  boundary  set  by  the  permis- 
sion of  God;  hence  God's  bounding-  of  sin  renders 
certain  what  and  how  much  will  come  to  pass. 

Satan  could  g-o  no  farther  with  Job  than  God  per- 
mitted; but  it  is  certain  that  he  would  g^o  as  far  as 
God  allowed. 

(b)  The  truth  of  the  fact  is  proved  by  the  predic- 
tion of  sinful  acts.  Christ's  death  was  foretold,  hence 
it  was  certain. 

True  of  every  predicted  sinful  act.  Hence  permis- 
sion makes  certain. 

Section  VI.  God's  decree  makes  foreknowledg"e  pos- 
sible. 

We  cannot  see  how  God  could  foresee  anything-  unless 
he  had  decreed  it.  Only  that  is  foreknown  which  is 
certain,  and  that  only  is  certain  which  is  decreed. 

God's  decree  cannot  rest  on  an  undecreed  event;  else 
certainty  would  rest  on  uncertainty,  which  is  impossible. 

What  is  forekown  must  first  be  predetermined. 

Section  VII.    The  decrees  in  reference  to  free  ag-ency. 

The  decree,  thoug-h  rendering-  future  events  certain, 
does  not  violate  free  ag"ency. 

1.  In  g-ood  acts  God  operates  on  the  ag-ent  and 
his  ag-ency  comes  into  play. 

2.  In  evil  acts  God  allows  the  ag"ent  to  carry  out 
his  own  will. 

3.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  three  men. 

One  is  induced  b}^  rational  persuasions  to  yield 
his  will  to  God  and  obey  him;  He  has  exercised  his 
free  agency. 

—47— 


Another  not  yielding-  to  ordinary  persuasion  is 
sovereignly  reg-enerated  by  God's  supreme  and  gra- 
cious power,  g-iven  a  new  nature  in  harmony  with 
God,  and  does  his  will  out  of  a  new  heart.  He  was 
not  an  ag-ent  in  his  regeneration  but  was  and  is  in 
every  act  of  his  life. 

A  third  yields  to  no  persuasion  ordinary  or  extra- 
ordinary. God  allows  him  to  take  his  own  chosen 
way.    He  also  is  a  free  ag^ent  in  his  sin. 

Section  VIII.    The  Doctrine  of  Election. 

This  subject  is  treated  in  Soteriology. 


Chapter  VII.    The  Works  of  God. 
Section  I.     Creation. 

1.     The  fact  of  a  Creation. 

Gen.  i:i.     In  the  beginning  GOD  created  the  heaven  and  earth. 

The  Bible  puts  the  fact  of  a  creation  in  its  first 
statement. 

(a)  The  purpose  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is 
not  to  teach  science.  It  is  not  intended  to  be  a  text 
book  on  Geology  or  Astronomy  or  any  other  of  the 
natural  sciences. 

We  are  not  to  expect  scientific  minutia,  or  de- 
tailed scientific  description,  nor  technical  scientific 
terms. 

The  purpose  of  Gen.  i  is  to  introduce  the  story  of 
redemption.  Its  point  of  view  is  the  cross  of  Christ 
down  the  vista  of  the  ages.  It  is  the  foreword  to  the 
plan  of  salvation. 

Col.  Robt.  Ingersoll  made  much  ado  about  Moses's 
mistake  in  crowding-  the  whole  subject  of  Astronomy 
into  five  words,  "He  made  the  stars  also."  What  a 
shameful  misappreciation  of  the  glorious  heavens! 
But  this  was  a  mistake  of  Ing-ersoll  and  not  of  Moses. 
The  author  of  Genesis  was  not  teaching  Astronomy. 
He  was  showing"  as  a  necessary  starting  point  that  God 
was  first  of  all,  and  above  all  and  creator  of  all,  and 
this  he  could  do  in  five  words  as  well  as  in  five  vol- 
umes. This  much  was  pertinent  enough  in  a  day  when 
men  were  tempted  to  worship  the  stars.  They  were 
creatures;  God  was  the  Creator. 

-48- 


(b)  Creation  stands  opposed  to  the  eternity  of 
matter.  Matter  shows  evidence  of  composition,  and 
also  of  arrangement,  therefore  not  self-existent. 

If  the  physical  universe  were  eternal  its  develop- 
ment would  have  been  complete  before  time  began. 

(c)  Creation  stands  opposed  to  emanation. 

We  think  it  derogatory  to  the  nature  of  God  that 
the  physical  universe  and  especially  sinful  beings 
should  be  an  emanation  from  the  substance  of  an  in- 
finitely holy  God. 

(d)  Creation  stands  opposed  to  the  non-existence 
of  matter  as  taught  by  Christian  Science  and  all 
idealistic  philosophies. 

2.  Time  of  Creation. 

(a)  There  are  various  views  as  to  the  days  of 
creation. 

ist.     Long   periods.      The    word   day   often    de- 
scribes a  long  period. 

2nd.     Days   of  vision.      Days   when   the   writer 
had  apocalyptic  visions  of  the  creation. 

3rd.     Twenty-four-hour  days — successive. 
4th.     Twenty-four-hour     days  —  not     successive. 
The  beginning-day  of  a  new  development. 

The  last  view  harmonizes  with  the  mention  of 
evening  and  morning  as  composing  the  day,  referred 
to  bj^  the  writer. 

The  Jewish  day  began  in  the  evening  and  there- 
fore it  was  natural  to  place  the  word  evening  first  in 
order  in  the  periods  that  constitute  the  day. 

Again  this  view  provides  for  long  periods  between 
the  days  of  creation  and  therefore  has  all  the  advan- 
tage of  the  first  view. 

About  these  questions  however  no  one  need  be  too 
dogmatic. 

(b)  Creation  in  Genesis  is  timeless  and  dateless. 
We  are  not  told  how  many  thousands  or  millions 

of  years  ago  God  created  the  world;  nor  how  long  the 
work  lasted. 

This  contrasts  with  some  of  the  ancient  cosmogo- 
nies which  assume  to  give  dates  and  times. 

3.  Order  of  Creation. 

(a)  Lower  to  higher,  nothing,  chaos,  order,  life, 
higher  life. 

—49— 


(b)  Order  of  life  according-  to  Genesis  and  Geol- 
ogy. 

Genesis  puts  plant  life  before  animal  life  which 
would  seem  to  be  the  natural  order. 

Formerly  it  was  supposed  that  Geology  bore  wit- 
ness to  marine  fauna  previous  to  plan  life,  which 
seemed  to  make  a  discrepancy  between  Genesis  and 
Geology. 

Later  discoveries  of  graphite  deposits  are  said  to 
show  the  existence  of  vegetable  life  at  an  earlier  date 
than  any  heretofore  assigned  to  marine  life. 

If  this  is  so  it  brings  the  order  of  Genesis  and 
Geology  into  harmony,  allowing  for  the  fact  that  de- 
tails and  minutia  are  not  given. 

So  great  is  the  agreement  of  Genesis  and  science 
that  the  conclusion  is  amply  warranted  that  the 
author  of  the  one  is  also  the  author  of  the  other;  and 
it  may  pertinently  be  asked:  Who  could  disclose  the 
secrets  of  creation  before  science  was  born  or  man  was 
on  the  earth  but  the  omniscient  Creator? 

4.     Harmonies  of  Genesis  with  Science. 

(a)  The  fact  of  a  beginning. 

(b)  Creation  bj^  intelligence. 

(c)  The  heavens  before  the  earth. 

(d)  The  unity  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 

(e)  Original  chaos  of  earth. 

(f)  Duration  of  time.  Shown  in  the  Spirit's 
brooding. 

(g)  Light  before  the  sun. 

(h)   Creation  not  simultaneous. 

(i)   Breaks  in  the  continuity. 

(j)   Progression  from  lower  to  higher. 

(k)   Vegetation  before   animals. 

(1)  Like  producing  like:  "whose  seed  is  in  it- 
self, after  its  kind." 

(m)   Man  the  last  of  the  creatures. 

(n)  Man  on  the  same  day  as  the  higher  ani- 
mals. 

(o)   Man's  body  from  the  dust  of  the  earth. 

(p)   Man  a  dual  being. 

(q)   Mankind  from  a  single  pair. 

We  hear  much  of  the  discrepancies  between  reli- 
gion and  science.  The  harmonies  are  far  more  strik- 
ing and  significant. 

—50— 


5.  The  Creation  of  Man. 

This  subject  is  treated  in  Anthropology. 

6.  Creation  and  Evolution. 

(a)  Materialistic  evolutionists  denj^  creation  by 
the  fiat  of  God.  They  assume  the  eternity  of  matter 
and  the  laws  of  nature  and  make  all  the  ordered  uni- 
verse and  its  animate  forms  to  arise  by  natural  laws 
and  natural  selection. 

This  eliminates  all  intelligent  design  and  purpose 
in  the  trend  of  the  world's  life.  It  is  bald  atheism  and 
blind  chance,  contradicted  on  every  page  of  nature 
and  by  all  human  experience. 

(b)  Pantheistic  evolutionists  assume  the  eternity 
of  impersonal  being,  developing  by  a  law  of  necessity 
into  the  universe  as  it  is. 

Like  materialism  it  leaves  no  room  for  intelligent 
foresight  nor  for  overruling  providence. 

Both  sj^stems  stand  opposed  to  creation  by  the 
power  of  an  infinite  will. 

(c)  Theistic  evolutionists  make  God  the  creator, 
and  evolution  the  method  of  his  working.  God  cre- 
ated matter,  gave  it  its  laws,  imparted  life  to  certain 
forms  or  germs,  and  by  controlling  providence  and 
immanent  power  wrought  out  the  forms  of  the  world's 
life. 

(d)  Remarks  on  Evolution  in  general. 

I  St.  Evolution  being  a  method  or  process  does 
not  undermine  the  doctrine  of  creation,  but  assumes 
it  as  a  starting  point. 

2nd.  Evolution  was  at  first  claimed  for  material 
forms,  subsequentl}'  carried  into  the  mental  and  spirit- 
ual realms  of  man's  existence,  further  applied  to.  the 
Scriptures  and  relig-ious  literature  and  ideas,  and  more 
recently  suggests  that  God  himself  is  an  imperfect  and 
developing  Deity. 

3rd.  The  Darwinian  form  of  evolution  with  its 
transmutation  of  species  is  burdened  with  so  many 
difTiculties  that  it  has  been  rejected  by  many  of  the 
scientific  men  of  the  past  generation  such  as  Agassiz, 
Lord  Kelvin,  Sir  Wm.  Dawson,  Dana,  Guyot,  Vir- 
chow,  Romanes,  and  is  rejected  by  an  increasing  num- 
ber of  the  present  generation.  Haeckel  laments: 
"Even  Wundt  now  is  writing  the  other  thing." 

Some  of  these  difficulties  will  be  considered  under 
the  topic:     The  creation  of  man  in  Anthropology. 

—51— 


4th.  A  newer  form  of  evolution  supposes  that 
each  species  had  its  own  specific  primordial  germ  and 
developed  therefrom  without  transmutation  of  species; 
but  developing-  variation  within  the  limits  of  the 
species.  This  theory  meets  with  less  opposition  and  is 
open  to  less  dispute  and  does  not  differ  greatly  from 
the  ordinary  view  of  creation;  but  must  ever  be  re- 
garded as  an  hypothesis  without  conclusive  proof. 

5th.  There  are  some  elements  of  truth  in  the 
theory  of  evolution. 

6th.  The  question  of  evolution  is  to  be  settled  by 
science  rather  than  by  the  Scriptures,  except  so  far  as 
it  contravenes  the  plain  teachings  of  the  Scriptures. 

Section  II.     Providence. 

Shorter  Catechism,  Quest,  ii.  God's  works  of 
providence  are  his  most  holy,  wise,  and  powerful  pre- 
serving and  governing  all  his  creatures  and  all  their 
actions. 

Providences  embraces  two  elements:  Preserva- 
tion and  Government. 

First  Element — Preservation. 

By  creation  God  called  the  world  into  existence 
and  by  preservation  lie  maintains  it  in  continuance. 

God's  upholding  power  is  as  necessary  for  contin- 
uance as  his  creative  power  was  for  existence. 

If  God  should  withdraw  his  preserving  power  all 
created  things  would  cease  to  be. 

(a)  Proof. 

Acts  17:28.     For  in  him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being. 
Heb.   1:3.     Upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power. 
Col.   1:17.     By  him  all  things  consist,  i.e.,  hold  together. 
Ps.  63:8.     Thy  right  hand  upholdeth  me. 
Neh.  9:6.     Thou  preservest  them  all. 

No  created  being  is  self-existent,  not  having  the 
cause  of  its  being  in  itself.  It  must  depend  for  con- 
tinuance on  its  creator. 

As  nothing  can  exist  without  God's  will,  so  no- 
thing can  continue  without  his  will. 

This  continuance  is  not  inherent  in  the  substance 
created  or  in  its  properties  or  in  the  general  laws  of 
nature,  but  is  due  to  the  constant  exercise  of  God's 
power. 

(b)  Its  Extent. 

God  upholds  the  material  universe. 

He  continues  the  existence  of  all  spiritual  beings. 

—52— 


He  upholds  wicked  men  while  they  sin  but  is  not 
the  efficient  cause  of  their  sin. 

The  universe  is  interpenetrated  by  the  living-  es- 
sence and  is  sustained  by  the  immediate  ag^ency  of 
God. 

(c)   Opposing"  Views. 

Materialism  excludes  all  supernatural  ag"ency. 

Deism  denies  anj^  providential  agency,  ascribes 
all  to  natural  law. 

Pantheism  assumes  the  eternitj^  and  self-existence 
of  the  universe  as  a  developing  system. 

Some,  as  Jonathan  Edwards,  Emmons  and  Hop- 
kins have  held  to  a  continual  creation  instead  of  a 
preservation. 

According"  to  this,  nothing  exists  from  moment  to 
moment  but  everything  is  created  de  novo  each  mo- 
ment by  the  agency  of  God. 

This  is  not  according"  to  the  Scriptures. 

It  would  extinguish  all  second  causes. 

It  would  destroy  the  responsibility  of  men  for 
their  evil  acts. 

According  to  this  God  is  the  only  agent.  God 
effects  everything";   the  creature  nothing. 

It  also  destroys  all  continuity  of  existence,  where- 
as we  know  ourselves  to  be  the  same  from  year  to 
year. 

Second  Element.     Government  or  Control. 

God  governs  all  his  creatures  and  all  their  actions. 

This  g"overnment  is  holy,  wise  and  powerful. 

1.     Proof. 

It  follows  as  a  natural  inference  that  a  personal 
God  who  created  the  world  would  also  govern  it, 

Man's  sense  of  responsibility  and  dependence, 
man's  quick  appeal  to  God  in  times  of  danger  show  a 
universal,  innate  conviction  that  God  g"overns  the 
world. 

The  Scriptures  show  that  God's  government  ap- 
plies as  follows: 

(a)  To  the  physical  nature. 
Ps,   104:14.     He  causeth  grass  to  grow. 

Ps,  135:7.  He  causeth  vapor  to  ascend,  lightnings,  rain,  wind. 
Ps.  145:16-17.  He  giveth  snow  like  wool,  hoar  frost,  ice,  cold. 
Acts  14:17.     He  giveth  rain  from  heaven  and  fruitful  seasons. 

(b)  The  animal  creation, 

Ps.    104:21.      The    young    lions    roar    after    their    prey,    and    seek 
their  meat  from  God. 

—53— 


Matt.  6:26.     Behold  the  fowls  of  the  air,  etc. 
Matt.  10:29.     Not  a  sparrow  falleth,  etc. 

(c)  To  the  events  of  human  history. 

I  Chron.  16:31.  Let  men  say  among  the  nations:  The  Lord 
reigneth. 

Ps.  47:7.     For  God  is  the  King  of  all  the  earth. 

Dan.  2:21.  He  changeth  the  times  and  the  seasons,  he  removeth 
kings  and  setteth  up  kings. 

(d)  To  individual  Hfe. 

r.  Sam.  2:6.  The  Lord  killeth  and  maketh  alive,  he  bringeth 
down  to  the  grave  and  bringeth  up. 

Prov.  16:9.  A  man's  heart  deviseth  his  ways  but  the  Lord 
directeth  his  steps. 

James  4:15.     If  the  Lord  will,  we  shall  live  and  do  this  or  that. 

(e)  To  so-called  fortuitous  events. 

Job  5:6.     Trouble  doth  not  spring  out  of  the  ground. 
Prov.    16:33.      The   lot    is   cast    into    the    lap,   but    the   whole   dis- 
posing thereof  is  of  the  Lord. 

(f)  To  the  smallest  particulars. 

Matt.   10:30.     The  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered. 

(g")   To  the  free  actions  of  men. 

Phil.  2:13.  For  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and 
do  of  his  good  pleasure. 

Ex.  12:36.  And  the  Lord  gave  the  people  favor  in  the  sight  of 
the  Egyptians. 

(h)   To  the  sinful  actions  of  men. 

II.  Sam.  16:10.  Shimei  cursing  David,  the  Lord  said  to  him, 
curse  David. 

Ps.  76:10.  Surely  the  wrath  of  man  shall  praise  thee  and  the 
remainder  of  wrath  shalt  thou  restrain. 

Rom.  11:32.  For  God  hath  shut  up  all  under  disobedience  that 
he  might  have  mercy  upon  all. 

Acts  4:27-28.  Herod  and  others  gathered  together  to  do  what- 
soever thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  predestinated  to  come  to  pass. 

2.     Theories  of  divine  government. 

(a)  Systems  that  deny  divine  control. 
Materialism    from   its    nature   excludes   all   divine 

government. 

Pantheism  holding"  to  a  development  by  the  law 
of  necessity  from  an  impersonal  something,  leaves  no 
room  for  super-natural  agency. 

Deism  holding  to  a  personal  God,  denies  that  he 
intervenes  in  the  affairs  of  the  world,  but  leaves  all 
thing's  to  the  operation  of  natural  laws. 

(b)  Some  make  God  the  only  efficient  cause,  and 

assign  all  action  to  his  agency,  denying  the  agency  of 
all  second  causes. 

—54  — 


J.  H.  Thornwell  in  his  earlier  writings  said,  "The 
only  efficient  cause  that  exists  in  the  universe  is  the 
fiat  of  the  Deitj^" 

Dr.  Emmons  held  that  if  any  creature  were  en- 
dowed with  activity  or  power  to  act,  it  would  be  inde- 
pendent of  God.  He  says:  "We  cannot  conceive  that 
even  omnipotence  itself  is  able  to  form  independent 
ag^ents,  because  this  would  be  to  endow  them  with 
divinity.  And  since  all  men  are  dependent  agents,  all 
their  motions,  exercises  or  actions  must  originate  in  a 
divine  efficiency." 

John  Scotus  Erigena  taught  that  "omnis  visibilis 
et  invisibilis  creatura  theophania." 

Many  of  the  reformers  in  vindicating  God's  sov- 
ereignty were  led  to  minimize  the  efficiency  of  second 
causes. 

Men  searching  to  understand  what  matter  is  have 
resolved  it  into  force  and  asking  what  force  is  have 
said  it  is  the  power  of  God,  thus  from  the  scientific 
side,  men  have  been  led  to  attribute  all  activity  to 
God. 

The  objections  to  this  are  evident: 

If  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  second  cause,  man 
has  no  responsibility. 

If  God  is  the  only  agent  in  the  universe,  all  evil 
must  be  attributed  to  him. 

It  contradicts  our  consciousness  of  personal  free 
agency. 

The  truth  is: 

God  is  the  First  Great  Cause. 

God  has  created  beings  with  the  power  of  self- 
determination,  capable  of  action  and  of  originating 
action,  and  responsible  therefor. 

God  upholds  or  preserves  in  being  all  creatures 
else  no  being  or  action  would  be  possible  to  them. 

God  governs  and  controls  his  creatures  so  that 
they  are  never  without,  nor  beyond  his  power  in  their 
freest  actions,  that  he  incites  and  promotes  all  that  is 
good,  and  limits,  bounds  and  overrules  all  that  is  evil. 

(c)   The  relation  of  Divine  to  human  activity. 

In  all  the  activity  of  second  causes  God's  agency 
is  a  concurrent  force.  It  is  evident  however  that  this 
is  not  the  same  in  all  cases.  The  concurrent  agency 
of  God  is  not  the  same  in  evil  as  in  good  actions. 

In  evil  acts  God  upholds  in  being  the  evil  agent, 
and  that  may  be  a  matter  of  mercy,  but  God's  agency 

—55— 


is  not  so  to  be  construed  as  to  involve  him  in  the 
quality  of  the  deed  only  so  far  as  he  prevents  and 
overrules. 

On  the  other  hand  God's  activity  in  the  good  acts 
of  men  partakes  of  more  efficiency. 

"It  is  not  you  that  work  but  God  that  worketh  in 
you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure." 

How  far  then  is  it  the  act  of  God  and  how  far  the 
act  of  man?  How  do  human  and  divine  actions 
coalesce? 

It  is  not  that  it  is  God's  activity  to  such  an  extent 
and  man's  the  rest  of  the  way;  as  if  there  were  a 
dividing  point  where  God's  agency  leaves  off  and 
man's  agency  begins. 

It  is  not  that  of  joint  action  as  when  two  horses 
draw  a  load,  the  combined  activity  of  both.  It  is 
rather  that  God  operates  upon  the  soul  inducing, 
inciting  and  moving  the  agent  to  the  exercise  of  his 
powers  in  lawful  ways.  While  the  act  is  that  of  the 
individual  it  is  nevertheless  due  more  or  less  to  the 
predisposing  agency  and  efficiency  of  divine  power. 

Sec.  III.    Miracles. 

1.     The  definition  of  a  miracle. 

(a)  W.  G.  T.  Shedd.  "A  miracle  is  an  extraor- 
dinary act  of  God." 

(b)  A.  A.  Hodge.  "A  miracle  is  an  event  in  the 
external  world  obvious  to  the  senses,  which  cannot  be 
rationally  attributed  to  any  agency  but  God,  which 
accompanies  a  messenger  from  God,  to  authenticate 
his  message  as  divine." 

(c)  A.  H.  Strong.  "A  miracle  is  an  event  palpable 
to  the  senses,  produced  for  a  religious  purpose  by  the 
immediate  agency  of  God." 

(d)  Dorner.  "Miracles  are  sensuously  cognizable 
events,  not  comprehensible  on  the  ground  of  the  caus- 
ality of  nature,  but  essentially  on  the  ground  of  God's 
free  action  alone.  Such  facts  find  their  possibility  in 
the  constitution  of  nature  and  God's  living  relation  to 
it;  their  necessity  in  the  aim  of  revelation  which  they 
subserve." 

(e)  Theodore  Christlieb.  "Miracles  are  the  effects 
of  God's  power  in  the  domain  of  nature,  supernatural 
phenomena,  the  eft'ective  causes  of  which  cannot  be 

-56- 


found  in  the  usual  course  of  nature  nor  in  the  spirit  of 
man  but  only  in  the  immediate  interposition  of  higher 
divine  powers." 

"Regeneration,  consolation,  peace,  etc.,  occupy  a 
middle  position  between  miracles  in  the  wider  and 
those  in  the  narrow  sense." 

(f)  David  Hume.  "Miracles  are  violation  of  the 
laws  of  nature. 

(g)  Strauss.  A  miracle  is  a  "rent  in  nature's  har- 
mony." 

The  term  miracle  is  variously  understood  and  de- 
fined. 

In  the  narrower  sense  it  is  limited  to  the  extraor- 
dinary act  of  God  in  the  external  world. 

In  the  wider  sense  it  includes  such  spiritual  results 
as  regeneration,  conversion,  and  sanctification. 

The  prevailing  usage  is  in  the  narrower  sense. 

2.     Classification. 

In  their  modus  operandi  miracles  may  be  classified 
as: — 

(a)  Immediate.  Immediate  miracles  are  those  in 
which  the  agency  of  God  is  without  intervening 
means,  as  the  creation  of  the  world,  the  raising  of  the 
dead,  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  these  miracles  no  means  are  evident. 

(b)  Mediate.  Mediate  miracles  are  those  in  which 
God  employs  natural  forces  or  elements,  sometimes 
intensifying  natural  agencies  beyond  the  usual  to 
effect  a  given  end. 

Examples  of  mediate  miracles  are  the  flood  where- 
in the  subsidence  of  the  earth's  crust,  the  breaking  up 
of  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep,  the  inflow  of  water 
to  lower  levels  effected  the  deluge. 

The  separation  of  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  by  a 
strong  east  wind,  the  feeding  of  Israel  with  quails, 
some  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  the  destruction  of 
Jabin's  army  by  storm  and  flood,  perhaps  also  the 
destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army. 

The  employment  of  these  natural  means  does  not 
render  the  event  any  less  a  miracle.  God's  interven- 
tion is  seen  in  directing  these  forces  to  a  particular 
end  at  a  particular  time. 

—57— 


3.     Are  miracles  probable  or  improbable? 

(a)  The  fact  of  a  free  personal  God  settles  the 
possibility  of  miracles.  If  God  is  the  creator  of  the 
world  no  one  can  deny  his  right  and  power  to  inter- 
vene in  it.  He  who  believes  in  God  as  a  free  personal 
Will  has  settled  for  himself  the  possibility  of  miracles. 
Once  admit  that  God  is  an  omnipotent  personal  being 
free  to  act,  and  the  manifestation  of  that  God  in  the 
world  is  a  foregone  conclusion. 

But  the  manifestation  of  that  being  otherwise 
than  in  nature  is  a  supernatural  affair  and  therefore  a 
miracle. 

And  that  a  free  beneficent  God  should  be  confined 
to  manifestation  in  nature  only,  contradicts  that  free- 
dom as  wellas  the  fitness  of  things.  It  is  illogical  to 
admit  the  miracle  of  creation  and  deny  the  possibility 
of  subsequent  miracles.  What  God  has  once  done  he 
must  always  be  able  to  do,  otherwise  he  would  cease 
to  be  God. 

(b)  If  miracles  are  possible  to  a  free,  omnipotent, 
personal  God,  are  they  equally  probable? 

Given  a  God  of  mercj^,  goodness  and  love  on  the 
one  hand  and  a  suffering,  perishing  world  on  the  other 
hand  what  is  the  probability  that  God  will  intervene? 

The  presumption  that  God  will  intervene  is  over- 
whelming. 

Is  it  not  more  probable  that  God  will  take  special 
measures  to  rescue  the  work  of  his  hands  and  the 
objects  of  his  love  than  to  abandon  them  to  a  fate 
without  end  and  without  a  remedy? 

God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  Son,  the 
greatest  of  all  miracles.  Once  admit  that  love,  as  an 
attribute  of  the  personal  God,  and  the  miracle  of 
redemption  will  appear  a  logical  sequence. 

Admitting  the  facts  of  a  personal  God  and  a  sinful 
world  the  antecedent  probability  of  miracles  becomes 
a  strong  conviction. 

Spinoza  denied  the  possibilitj^  of  miracles,  because 
he  denied  a  personal  God. 

Hume  denied  the  probability  of  miracles  because 
he  denied  the  freedom  of  God,  and  imprisoned  him  in 
the  world  which  he  had  made  and  fettered  him  in 
natural  law. 

If  the. miraculous  is  impossible  no  prayer  need  be 
offered  at  the  bedside  of  the  sick  and  dying,  no  cry 
for  help  arise  in  face  of  threatening  death.     From  a 

-58- 


blind,  deaf  process  of  nature  you  may  only  await  your 
destiny.  If  over  the  coffin  of  husband,  wife  or  mother, 
you  long-  for  the  touch  of  a  vanished  hand  and  the 
sound  of  a  voice  that  is  still,  you  are  rudely  informed 
by  these  false  philosophers  of  the  non-miraculous, 
that  there  is  no  resurrection,  no  recognition,  no  fellow- 
ship forever. 

If  you  sig-h  for  deliverance  from  an  evil  nature 
you  are  answered  by  the  apostles  of  uniformity  that 
the  new  birth  itself  would  be  an  unnatural  interrup- 
tion of  your  naturally  sinful  development. 

If  the  supernatural  is  ruled  out  of  life  all  the  holi- 
est aspirations  of  the  human  heart  would  be  buried  in 
the  g-rave  of  the  miraculous.  Let  the  heart  of  the 
world  answer  which  is  the  more  probable. 

Is  the  Creator  a  moral  or  a  non-moral  God? 

Does  the  world  exist  for  a  physical  or  a  moral 
end? 

Proper  consideration  for  these  questions  will  show 
how  probable  it  is  that  miracle  will  ensue  when  there 
is  a  sufficiently  important  moral  or  beneficent  end  to 
be  served  thereby. 

4.     Are  miracles  necessary? 

The  world  has  a  final  cause  as  well  as  a  First 
Cause.  The  final  cause  is  the  g^lory  of  God  in  the  bea- 
tific destiny  of  man.  If  that  final  cause  is  ever  to  be 
achieved  arniracle  would  seem  to  be  a  necessity. 

Sin  has  come  into  the  world  and  ruined  man's 
nature.  He  is  now  a  fallen  creature,  under  curse  and 
under  bondage  to  sin. 

Salvation  cannot  come  to  man  through  the  opera- 
tion of  natural  law.  Left  to  himself  man  goes  down 
to  increasing-  depravity  and  eternal  doom,  natural  law 
will  not  save  him.    Natural  law  condemns  him. 

Natural  law  inflicts  the  penalty.  The  very  uni- 
formity of  natural  law  makes  the  sinner's  doom  cer- 
tain. 

"The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die"  is  natural  law. 

"The  wages  of  sin  is  death"  is  natural  law. 

As  long  as  fire  burns  and  water  drowns  and  gravi- 
tation exerts  its  power,  natural  law  will  exact  the 
utmost  penalty  for  transgression. 

If  therefore  man  is  saved  it  must  be  that  super- 
natural power  rescues  him  from  the  consequences  of 
his  sin. 

—59— 


The  revelation  of  God's  law  and  especially  the 
plan  of  salvation  was  necessary  to  salvation  and  that 
is  miracle. 

The  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ  was  necessary  to 
salvation  and  that  was  a  miracle. 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  was  necessary  to 
break  the  power  of  death  and  that  was  a  miracle. 

And  if  our  bodies  rise  to  enjoy  their  deliverance 
from  the  curse  of  sin  that  also  will  be  a  miracle. 

Miracles  are  therefore  a  necessity  in  the  plan  of 
redemption,  and  in  the  final  cause  of  the  world. 

5.    Are  miracles  a  violation  of  natural  law? 

Spinoza  said:  "The  laws  of  nature  are  the  only 
realization  of  the  divine  will;  if  anything  in  nature 
could  happen  to  contradict  them  God  would  contra- 
dict himself." 

Spinoza's  fallacy  is  in  the  first  half  of  his  sen- 
tence.   He  makes  God  and  nature  identical. 

If  there  is  no  God  but  nature  then  of  course  there 
is  no  miracle. 

Miracles  do  not  violate  natural  law  because: — 

(a)  Natural  law  operates  during  the  working  of 
the  miracle. 

One  law  is  superseded  by  another  law.  When  I 
support  an  apple  in  my  hand  the  law  of  gravitation 
does  not  cease  to  act,  but  another  power  prevents  the 
apple  from  falling.  So  when  an  aeroplane  flies  among 
the  clouds,  or  a  steel  vessel  floats,  or  a  ram  forces 
water  to  run  up  an  incline. 

The  natural  laws  are  operative  all  the  time,  but 
human  contrivances  effect  their  purpose  while  no  law 
of  nature  is  suspended  or  violated. 

So  with  miracles.  When  the  leper  was  cleansed 
the  disease  did  not  reverse  itself  and  contribute  health 
to  the  body;  but  a  higher  power  counteracted  the  force 
of  the  lower  and  effected  the  result. 

When  the  dead  were  raised  it  was  not  the  law  of 
decomposition  that  reversed  itself  and  became  a 
means  of  life,  but  a  higher  law  that  intervened. 

Natural  laws  continue  to  act  while  miracles  are 
being  performed. 

(b)  Nature  is  subject  to  the  power  of  will. 

The  human  will  can  act  directly  on  the  human 
organism  (and  through  that  organism  on  other 
things). 


I  say  to  my  hand,  "Move,"  it  moves.  "Do  this," 
and  it  does  it. 

If  the  human  will  can  initiate  action  without 
means,  shall  not  the  immanent  God  produce  effects  in 
the  universe  with  no  means  but  his  omnipotent  will? 

If  physical  nature  and  realms  of  life  below  man 
are  subject  to  his  power  are  not  all  realms  below  God 
subject  to  his  divine  power? 

If.it  is  no  violation  of  natural  law  for  a  human 
will  to  act  upon  physical  nature,  is  it  a  violation  of 
natural  law  for  the  divine  will  to  do  so,  since  God  is 
as  immanent  in  the  universe  as  our  souls  in  our  nat- 
ural bodies? 

(c)  The  natural  is  the  product  of  the  supernatural. 
Since  the  natural  proceeds  from  the  supernatural, 

it  must  always  continue  to  be  open  to  its  influence, 
else  the  higher  would  be  conditioned  by  the  lower 
which  is  unnatural. 

Natural  law  expresses  the  will  of  the  Creator  in  a 
g"enerally  uniform  operation.  But  the  law  is  not  above 
its  Creator.    It  does  not  command  him,  but  he  it. 

"If  the  laws  of  nature  originally  proceeded  from 
God,  is  he  the  only  one  who  is  not  master  in  his  own 
house?" — Christlieb. 

(d)  The  miracle,  once  it  is  effected,  takes  its  place 
in  the  natural  course  of  things  without  producing  dis- 
harmony. 

The  healing  of  the  sick  and  the  raising  of  the 
dead  did  not  abrogate  the  laws  of  health,  nor  disturb 
the  course  of  life  in  the  world. 

The  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ  did  not  disturb 
the  laws  of  birth,  nor  reverse  moral  obligations  in  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  world. 

No  disharmonies  in  the  natural  laws  of  the  world 
have  been  introduced  by  the  advent  of  miracles.  The 
laws  of  nature  still  hold  and  operate  as  before. 

In  considering  miracle  and  natural  law  this  should 
not  be  overlooked. 

6.  Are  miracles  inconsistent  with  the  uniformity 
of  nature? 

Deniers  of  miracles  make  much  of  the  uniformity 
of  nature.  They  say  that  the  uniformity  of  nature's 
laws  makes  all  miraculous  exceptions  unbelievable. 

(a)   We  admit  a  general  uniformity  in  nature. 

— 6i— 


We  even  declare  that  such  a  uniformity  is  benefi- 
cent, otherwise  no  one  could  plan  for  the  future.  If 
seasons  did  not  uniformly'  follow  each  other,  if  daj^ 
and  night  did  not  regularly  succeed,  if  seed  did  not 
bring-  forth  after  its  kind,  if  nature  had  no  established 
laws  the  world  would  be  in  hopeless  confusion  and 
perplexitj^  But  while  there  is  a  general  uniformit3' 
there  is  not  an  absolute  uniformity. 

If  nature  were  as  absolutely  uniform  as  the  object- 
ors to  miracles  contend,  the  world  would  be  as  hope- 
less as  if  the  contrarj^  were  true. 

(b)  Examples  of  non-uniformity.  It  is  a  law  of 
nature  that  cold  contracts  but  there  is  a  beneficent  ex- 
ception to  that  law  a  few  degrees  above  freezing  point 
without  which  life  would  be  impossible  on  a  great  part 
of  the  globe. 

The  seasons  are  not  absolutely  uniform,  in  fact  no 
two  seasons  are  exactlj^  alike. 

In  all  nature  there  are  differences  as  well  as  sim- 
ilarity. 

The  creation  of  the  world  was  a  break  in  the 
uniformity  that  preceded  it.  Each  species  of  animals 
that  appeared  on  the  earth,  and  there  were  scores  of 
them,  broke  the  preceding  continuity.  Man's  appear- 
ance was  another  break  in  the  uniformity.  Nothing 
like  him  had  ever  appeared  before.  All  through  the 
history  of  the  world  there  have  been  breaks  in  the 
uniformity. 

So  too  the  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ  was  an 
exception  to  the  general  law  of  birth  in  the  world. 

Every  new  species  of  animal  life  was  an  interven- 
tion by  the  Creator;  and  the  incarnation  was  a  special 
intervention  for  a  special  moral  purpose  that  justified 
it. 

(c)  If  miracles  were  no  exception  to  the  general 
uniformity  the^^  would  largely  fail  of  their  purpose. 
Just  because  the^'  are  exceptional  do  they  excite  atten- 
tion and  serve  their  purpose  and  teach  their  lesson.  If 
burning'  bushes  had  been  as  common  as  budding  bush- 
es Moses  would  not  have  turned  aside  to  see. 

If  the  plagues  of  Egypt  had  been  everyday  occur- 
rences they  would  have  been  no  sign  that  Jehovah 
was  with  Moses. 

If  resurrection  were  as  common  in  the  world  as 
birth  we  would  miss  the  supernatural  in  it. 

That  miracles  are  exceptions  to  the  common  rule 
gives  them  special  value. 

—62— 


7.  Are  miracles  evidential  or  didactic? 

(a)  Much  was  written  a  few  j^ears  ago  denying- 
that  miracles  had  any  evidential  value.  It  was  said 
that  from  being  the  chief  supports  of  a  revelation, 
they  had  become  the  chief  difficulty;  that  the  more  the 
Scripture  records  abound  in  miracles  the  more  are 
they  to  be  disbelieved. 

The  records  were  even  appealed  to  to  show  that 
Christ  disapproved  of  miracles,  at  least  for  evidential 
purpose,  for  when  his  g^eneration  asked  him  to  show 
them  a  sig"n,  he  refused  to  g"ive  it. 

It  was  therefore  customary  among  such  writers  to 
g"ive  miracles  a  didactic  rather  than  an  evidential 
value,  if  they  assigned  any  value  to  them  at  all. 

(b)  Miracles  are  didactic. 

Admitting-  the  fact  of  the  miracle,  the  didactic 
value  is  scarcely  open  to  dispute. 

(c)  Miracles  are  evidential  also. 

This  is  clearly  taught  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 

Matt.  9:6.  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  hath 
power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins.  I  say  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  arise. 
Evidential. 

Matt.  11:5.  Go  show  John  again  those  things  which  ye  have 
seen — the  blind  receive  their  sight,  the  lame  walk,  etc.  Evidential 
surely. 

Jno.  3:2.  Master  we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from 
God,  for  no  man  could  do  the  miracles  that  thou  doest  except  God 
be   with   him. 

Jno.  5:36.     The  works  that  I  do  bear  witness  of  me. 

Jno.  9:30,  32.  Why  herein  is  a  marvellous  thing  that  ye  know 
not  whence  he  is  and  yet  he  hath  opened  my  eyes.  If  this  man 
were  not  of  God  he  could  do  nothing.  Since  the  world  began  was 
it  not  heard  that  any  MAN  ever  opened  the  eyes  of  one  that  was 
born  blind. 

Jno.  20:30,  31.  Many  other  works  did  Jesus  which  are  not  writ- 
ten in  this  book,  but  these  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  might  have 
life   through  his  name. 

Jno.   10:37,  38. 

All  this  shows  clearly  that  miracles  are  evidential 
in  their  character. 

8.  Is  the  age  of  miracles  past? 

It  is  sometimes  asked:  If  there  ever  were  miracles, 
why  do  they  not  occur  today?  Is  not  the  common  ex- 
perience of  men  a  sufficient  negation  of  miracles? 

As  to  the  frequency  or  infrequency  of  miracles  we 
remark: — 

—63- 


(a)  They  are  g"eneralh'  connected  with  a  revela- 
tion, or  a  messeng-er  from  God.  Some  authorities  put 
this  fact  in  the  definition  of  a  miracle. 

(b)  They  usually  occur  in  great  crises  of  the 
world's  moral  life;  as  for  example,  in  the  deliverance 
of  Israel  from  Egypt,  and  the  training-  of  a  people  for 
God,  in  Elijah's  conflict  with  heathenism,  and  in  the 
manifestation  of  Jesus  Christ. 

(c)  Different  conditions  may  make  them  more 
frequent  in  one  age  than  another. 

(d)  They  are  not  to  be  expected  where  natural 
law  is  sufficient. 

(e)  They  are  not  to  be  expected  where  revelation 
is  sufficient. 

(f)  They  are  infrequent  in  an  unbelieving"  age  or 
place. 

Mat.  13:58.  He  did  not  many  mighty  works  there  because  of 
their  unbelief. 

(g)  The  Scriptures  have  never  said  that  the  age  of 
miracles  is  past. 

(h)  Many  miracles  have  occurred  subsequent  to 
the  days  of  the  Apostles.  TertuUian  and  Origen  tes- 
tify of  miraculous  happenings  long"  after  the  days  of 
the  Apostles. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (429)  says:  "Many  hea- 
then among"  us  are  being  healed  by  Christians  from 
whatsoever  sicknesses  they  may  have,  so  abundant  are 
miracles  in  our  midst." 

(i)   The  Scriptures  bear  their  testimony. 

Jno.  14:12.  He  that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall 
he  do  also,  and  greater  works  than  these  shall  he  do  because  I  go  to 
the  Father. 

Mk.  16:17,18.  And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe: 
In  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  demons;  they  shall  speak  with  new 
tongues;  they  shall  take  up  serpents,  and  if  they  shall  drink  any 
deadly  thing  it  shall  not  hurt  them;  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the 
sick  and  they  shall  recover. 

Many  miracles,  signs,  wonders  and  judgments  are 
foretold  for  the  consummation  period  of  human  his- 
tory. 

9.     Objections  to  Miracles. 

(a)   Spinoza's  Objection. 

"The  laws  of  nature  are  the  only  realization  of  the 
divine  will.  If  any  thing"  in  nature  could  happen  to 
contradict  them,  God  would  contradict  himself." 

Spinoza's  premise  is  wrong,  his  conclusion  is 
therefore  wrong.     He  begs  the  question  to  begin  with. 

—64- 


He  assumes  the  thing-  that  he  ought  to  prove,  viz.  that 
the  laws  of  nature  are  the  only  realization  of  the 
divine  will. 

Spinoza's  philosophy  determined  his  theolog"y.  A 
Pantheistic  philosophy  leaves  no  room  for  supernat- 
ural interposition.  Denjang"  a  personal  God  of  course 
Spinoza  must  deny  miracles. 

0   Hume's  Objection. 

Hume  says:  "Miracles  are  violations  of  the  laws 
of  nature:  but  we  learn  from  experience  that  the  laws 
of  nature  are  never  violated.  For  miracles  we  have 
the  questionable  testimony  of  a  few  persons;  against 
them  we  have  universal  experience;  therefore  this 
stronger  testimony  nullifies  the  weaker  and  more  ques- 
tionable." 

Every  statement  in  this  passage  is  false. 

First.    Miracles  are  not  a  violation  of  natural  law. 

Second.  Every  day's  experience  shows  that  man 
has  power  over  the  forces  of  nature;  much  more  has 
God. 

Third.  The  testimony  to  miracles  is  abundant, 
throug"h  many  ages,  by  many  people,  and  anything 
but  questionable.  When  a  dozen  disciples  of  Christ 
would  lay  down  their  lives  rather  than  deny  the  facts 
which  they  had  seen,  the  testimony  cannot  be  called 
questionable. 

Consider  the  character  of  these  men  who  bore  wit- 
ness, and  the  purpose  of  their  doing  so,  not  for  g'ain, 
pleasure,  preferment,  etc.  No  personal  ends  were  to 
be  gained  for  which  they  risked  martyrdom. 

Fourth.  "Against  them  universal  experience" — 
that  begs  the  question — that  is  the  thing-  in  dispute. 
Universal  experience  is  not  against  miracles.  A  uni- 
versal experience  must  include  the  experience  of  all 
men. 

A  million  men  mig'ht  say  they  had  never  wit- 
nessed a  miracle;  but  their  testimony'  would  not  be 
valid  ag^ainst  a  comparatively  small  number  who 
could  testify  to  what  they  had  seen  or  experienced. 
No  court  in  the  world  would  accept  the  testimony  of  a 
man  who  did  not  see  something'  on  an  occasion  when 
he  was  not  present.  If  we  include  in  miracles  the  fact 
of  regeneration  and  other  spiritual  effects,  the  number 
of  witnesses  is  innumerable. 

Hume  arg-ues  that  it  is  more  probable  that  the 
testimony  is  false  than  that  the  miracle  is  true. 

-65- 


Hume  looks  at  the  question  from  a  one-sided  view 
point.  His  Deistic  or  naturalistic  philosophy  warps 
his  judgment. 

He  leaves  out  of  consideration  the  moral  and  spir- 
itual needs  of  the  world,  and  also  the  fact  of  a  loving" 
and  personal  God  with  a  purpose  to  save  the  creatures 
of  his  hand. 

A  moral  and  religious  view  of  the  world  puts  the 
probability  in  favor  of  the  miraculous. 

Hume  has  been  refuted  in  detail  by  English  apol- 
ogists such  as  Campbell,  Paley,  Whately,  Wardlaw, 
Pearson  and  others,  and  by  German  writers  as  well. 

(c)   Objections  by  Rationalism. 

Rationalism  arose  about  the  middle  of  the  i8th 
century,  about  1750.  It  sought  to  offset  belief  in  mir- 
acles with  the  advanced  knowledge  of  nature.  Its  ten- 
dency was  to  put  natural  religion  in  the  place  of 
supernatural. 

It  tried  to  explain  away  miracles  by  attributing 
them  to  natural  causes,  and  attributing  to  those  who 
performed  them  a  knowledge  of  phj'sics,  chemistry, 
pyrotechnics,  etc. 

Thunder-  and  lightning  were  thought  sufficient  to 
explain  the  miracles  on  Sinai,  Carmel  and  the  voice 
at  Christ's  baptism. 

The  loaves  and  fishes  were  not  multiplied,  but  the 
example  of  the  lad  induced  others  to  share  their  sup- 
plies etc.,  etc. 

All  this  was  in  sheer  disregard  of  the  record  for 
which  the  rationalists  had  no  respect. 

Radical  Rationalism  rejected  revelation  and  exalt- 
ed human  reason  as  sufficient  to  discover  God  and  all 
human  duty. 

Reason  was  the  sole  authority  and  happiness  the 
chief  end  of  man.  But  human  nature  degenerated  by 
sin,  is  not  sufficient  for  itself  without  instruction  and 
education  by  God. 

That  reason  is  insufficient  for  human  guidance  is 
proved  by  the  condition  of  the  whole  heathen  world. 

Paul  says:  "The  world  by  wisdom  knew  not 
God." 

After  all  has  been  safd  that  can  be  said  for  innate 
ideas  and  intuitive  truth  it  still  remains  true  that  rea- 
son is  essentially  a  faculty,  a  receptive  faculty  whose 
function  is  to  hear,  learn  and  embrace  the  truth  re- 
ceived from  without  and  above. 

—66— 


If  God  can  reveal  himself  in  nature  in  its  ordin- 
ary forms  and  phases,  why  can  he  not  reveal  himself 
for  special  ends  by  unusual  phases  of  nature  or  with- 
out means  of  any  kind? 

This  form  of  rationalism  was  Deistic  and  all  the 
arguments  against  Deism  and  all  the  reasons  for  the 
insufficiency  of  natural  theology  hold  against  this 
form  of  Rationalism. 

(d)  Kant  (1724-1804)  and  Fichte  (1762-1814)  raised 
the  objection  to  direct  revelation  that  even  if  it  should 
occur  no  one  could  distinguish  between  a  divine  com- 
munication and  the  subjective  operation  of  his  own 
intellect. 

To  this  it  is  answered,  first  that  all  revelation  was 
not  internal,  many  revelations  were  given  by  outward 
means  such  as  theophanies,  angelic  appearances,  etc. 

And  second,  the  recipients  of  revelations  do  de- 
cidedly distinguish  between  their  own  thoughts  and 
the  revelation. 

Prophets  strove  to  understand  the  meaning  of  the 
revelations  they  had  received. 

I.  Peter  1:10-11.  Of  which  salvation  the  prophets  have  inquired 
and  searched  diligently  who  prophesied  of  the  grace  that  should 
come  unto  you;  searching  what  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  who  was  in  them  did  signify. 

Abraham,  Zacharias  and  Mary  were  incredulous  in 
regard  to  the  promises  of  posterity. 
Gen.   17:17.     Luke   1:18.     Luke   1:34. 

And  Peter  protested  against  the  revelation  as  to 
unclean  meats  and  Jeremiah  protested  against  his  call 
to  prophesy. 

Paul  too  clearly  distinguishes  between  his  own 
words  and  the  Lord's;  "This  I  command,  yet  not  I, 
but  the  Lord."    "But  to  the  rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord." 

(e)  Jacob  Grimm  (1785-1863)  supposed  that  God's 
speaking  to  man  would  imply  that  he  subjected  him- 
self to  the  changes  and  developments  of  time,  which 
the  Uncreated  and  Immutable  cannot  do. 

But  revelation  implies  no  change  in  the  essential 
nature  of  God.  Revelation  itself  may  be  marked  by 
development,  and  God  may  reveal  himself  more  and 
more  while  the  essence  of  the  Divine  nature  is  un- 
changed and  undisturbed. 

(f)  Schenkel  (1813-1885)  declared  that  a  supposed 
revelation   by  theophanies   and   angelic   agencies    de- 

-r.7— 


stroys  the  spiritual  conception  of  God  by  mixing-  up 
his  manifestation  with  the  alternations  of  material 
phenomena. 

If  creation  is  possible  to  a  spiritual  God  theo- 
phanic  revelation  cannot  be  less  so.  If  the  former 
does  not  destroy  the  true  idea  of  God  surely  the  latter 
should  not. 

Man  acts  on  and  throug-h  material  forms,  why 
deny  such  prerog^atives  to  God? 

Moreover  man  is  largely  appealed  to  by  material 
phenomena,  why  should  God  not  reach  him  through 
these  natural  channels? 

(g)  David  Strauss  (1808-1874)  says:  "We  now 
know  for  certain  at  least  what  Jesus  was  not  and  what 
he  did  not  do,  viz.  nothing  superhuman  nor  supernat- 
ural." 

Strauss  refuted  the  rationalists  in  their  natural- 
istic explanation  of  the  miracles,  but  sought  to  over- 
throw them  on  other  grounds.  Strauss  endeavored  to 
undermine  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Scriptural  rec- 
ords, especially  the  gospel  history.  In  his  Leben  Jesu, 
1835,  he  attributed  the  gospels  to  the  growth  of  myth 
and  legend.  In  the  edition  of  1864  he  put  more  stress 
on  intentional  invention. 

According  to  Strauss  the  admirers  of  Jesus  wove 
around  his  memory  all  the  wonderful  things  narrated 
in  the  gospels.  And  as  they  conceived  him  to  be  the 
Messiah,  he  must  do  more  and  greater  things  than 
those  attributed  to  Moses  and  the  prophets.  So  too 
many  of  his  sayings  were  adorned  with  a  miraculous 
tale.  "I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men"  grew  into  the 
story  of  the  miraculous  draught.  When  he  said  the 
unfruitful  tree  should  be  cut  down,  this  grew  into  the 
story  of  the  withered  fig  tree.  The  early  Christians 
read  in  the  second  Psalm,  "Thou  art  my  Son;  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee,"  hence  the  myth  that  Christ  was 
the  Son  of  God,  etc.,  etc.  Thus  the  story  of  Christ  was 
expanded  and  decorated  till  the  Gospels  were  pro- 
duced and  composed  some  time  in  the  second  century. 
All  but  a  meager  residuum  was  myth,  legend,  or  inten- 
tional fabrication,  and  nothing  miraculous  or  super- 
natural. 

Strauss  was  ably  answered  by  Tholuck,  Neander, 
Ullmann,  Ebrard,  and  others.  Strauss  was  the  fabri- 
cator instead  of  the  early  disciples.  His  whole  work 
is    sheer    supposition,    with    no    regard    for    historical 

—68— 


accuracy  or  truthfulness.  All  investigation  has  shown 
the  gospels  to  be  trustworthy.  All  evidence  shows 
them  to  have  been  written  too  early  for  myth  and 
legends  to  grow.  If  the  first  century  was  such  a  myth- 
making  age,  it  is  unaccountable  that  no  miracles  were 
attributed  to  John  the  Baptist  who  was  held  to  be  a 
great  prophet. 

Strauss  pays  no  heed  to  the  historical  spirit  of  the 
first  century,  nor  to  the  statements  of  John:  "That 
which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you," 
and  the  statement  of  Peter:  "We  have  not  followed 
cunningly  devised  fables." 

Strauss  must  also  explain  why  men  would  persist 
in  such  fabrications  to  the  loss  of  all  worldly  goods, 
personal  comfort,  and  life  itself. 

The  lives  of  the  Apostles  can  be  explained  only  on 
the  ground  of  their  intense  conviction  of  the  truth  of 
what  they  proclaimed. 

Strauss  was  a  disciple  of  Hegelian  philosophy,  and 
to  his  Pantheistic  conception  no  miracle  was  possible. 
To  him  all  miracle  was  a  sign  of  myth.  In  his  last 
work  he  endeavored  to  prove  that  there  is  no  con- 
scious or  personal  God. 

He  was  unhistorical,  capricious,  and  often  ridicu- 
lous. After  these  years  his  views  have  few  adherents. 
Every  day  drives  new  nails  in  the  coffin-lid  of  the 
Tubingen  Theology;  and  there  is  scarce  one  now  so 
poor  as  to  do  it  reverence. 

(h)   Renan  (1823-1892)  in  his  "Les  Apotres"  says: 

"Miracles  are  not  performed  in  the  places  where 
they  ought  to  be.  One  single  miracle  performed  in 
Paris  before  competent  judges  would  forever  settle  so 
many  doubts.  But  alas  none  has  ever  taken  place. 
No  miracle  was  ever  performed  before  the  people  who 
need  to  be  converted — I  mean  before  unbelievers.  The 
conditio  sine  qua  non  of  the  miraculous  is  the  credu- 
lity of  the  witnesses.  No  miracle  was  ever  performed 
before  those  who  could  thoroughly  discuss  the  matter 
and  decide  in  regard  to  it." 

On  this  we  remark: 

That  many  of  Christ's  miracles  fulfilled  the  very 
conditions  that  Renan  demands.  They  were  perform- 
ed before  the  unbelieving  Pharisees,  and  before  suffi- 
cient numbers  to  verify  and  multiply  the  testimony. 

-69- 


Credulity  was  not  always  the  easy  circumstance. 
Thomas  demanded  palpable  proof  of  the  resurrection. 
The  Pharisees  could  not  deny  the  miracles  but  attrib- 
uted them  to  Beelzebub. 

Nicodemus  a  learned  man  said,  "No  man  can  do 
the  miracles  thou  doest  except  God  be  with  him." 

In  the  Jewish  and  Roman  world  there  were  cer- 
tainly wise  and  learned  men  who  were  competent 
judges. 

If  not  many  miracles  are  witnessed  in  Paris  it 
might  perhaps  learn  the  reason  from  Nazareth. 

Miracles  are  not  performed  to  convince  men 
against  their  will.  Some  possibility  of  doubt  generally 
remains  where  faith  is  required;  giving  to  faith  an  ele- 
ment of  trust  that  differentiates  it  from  knowledge. 

God  works  no  miracles  to  convince  men  who  do 
not  want  to  be  convinced,  or  who  have  abundant  evi- 
dence at  hand.  "If  thej"  hear  not  Moses  and  the 
prophets  neither  will  thej'  be  persuaded  though  one 
rose  from  the  dead." 

In  1863  Renan  published  his  "Vie  de  Jesus,"  in 
which  the  historicity^  of  the  Gospels  was  evaporated 
into  poetic  fancy. 

Both  Strauss  and  Renan  built  their  works  on  cre- 
ative imagination.  To  conjecture  how  a  thing  might 
have  been  is  not  to  prove  how  it  was. 

(i)  Celsus  the  heathen  of  the  second  century, 
Reimarus  (1694-1768),  Voltaire  and  other  deists  ac- 
cused Jesus  Christ  or  else  the  Gospel  writers  with  in- 
tentional fraud. 

This  is  refuted  by  a  single  question:  How  could 
the  regeneration  of  the  world  proceed  from  an  im- 
moral deceiver?  or  how  could  a  few  fraudulent  men 
give  to  the  world  the  loftiest,  purest,  most  spiritual 
movement  the  world  has  ever  known! 

(j)  Others  have  said  that  Christ  was  self  deceived 
or  the  disciples  deceived  in  regard  to  him.  Then  we 
are  to  believe  that  the  Greek  and  Roman  world  and 
the  high  civilization  of  the  present  day  were  imposed 
upon  by  a  few  ignorant  Galilean  fisherman  who  were 
themselves  deceived,  and  that  our  great  educational 
institutions,  our  Christian  civilization,  and  the  moral 
power  of  Christianity  are  all  the  product  of  a  mistake, 
or  due  to  the  fabrications  of  a  few  dreamers. 

(k)  It  has  been  urged  that  miracles  imply  imper- 
fection in  the  original  plan  therefore  inconsistent  with 

—70— 


God's  omniscience;  that  it  is  charg-ing-  the  Almighty 
with  mistakes  in  the  work  of  his  hands.  Is  the  work 
of  God  so  faulty  that  he  must  intervene  to  mend  its 
mechanism,  as  a  poor  mechanic  would  do  to  his  faulty 
construction? 

This  overlooks  the  distinction  between  the  works 
of  God  as  they  came  from  his  hand  and  as  subsequent- 
ly ruined  by  sin. 

Miracle  is  not  an  attempt  to  mend  a  faulty  con- 
struction but  to  restore  it  to  its  original  perfection. 

10.     Special  arguments  for  miracles. 

(a)  The  denial  of  miracles  is  the  denial  of  a  free, 
living,  personal  God. 

(b)  The  denial  of  a  free  living-  personal  God  sub- 
verts all  religion  and  all  moral  life.  If  no  miracle  we 
have  either  no  salvation,  or  no  other  life  than  this, 
and  no  barrier  to  the  grossest  materialism.  Men  will 
neither  fear,  love  or  serve  what  has  no  power  over 
them  or  relation  to  them. 

(c)  If  no  miracle,  Christ  was  not  incarnate  God, 
never  rose  from  the  grave  and  offers  no  hope  for  the 
future. 

(d)  If  no  miracle  all  things  in  nature  and  history 
must  be  explained  on  the  basis  of  natural  law,  which 
would  involve  g-reater  difficulties  than  belief  in  mir- 
acles. 

If  no  miracle  there  was  no  creation  and  the  world 
is  eternal;  no  preservation  or  providence  and  the 
world  has  continued  itself  in  existence,  or  is  the  favor- 
ite of  mere  chance. 

If  no  creation,  nian  and  all  life  is  the  product  of 
spontaneous  generation,  a  scientific  absurdity. 

If  no  miracle,  we  must  explain  the  fact  of  Israel, 
her  laws,  and  institutions;  the  Bible;  prophecy;  Christ 
and  his  character  and  teaching's;  the  disciples  and 
their  convictions;  the  Christian  Church  and  its  tvork 
in  the  world;  Christianity  and  its  regenerating  power; 
the  twice  born  men  and  their  new  life; — and  explain 
all  these  as  the  products  of  natural  law,  chance,  decep- 
tion or  falsehood. 

By  denying  miracles  we  are  compelled  to  believe 
in  less  believable  prodigies. 

(e)  He  who  has  once  been  the  subject  of  regener- 
ating grace  and  has  experienced  the  saving  power  of 
God,  and  lives  in  communion  with  him,  will  have 
little  difficulty  in  believing  in  miracles. 

—71— 


PART  SECOND. 

ANTHROPOLOGY. 

Index  Page. 

Definition. 

Chapter         I.     THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN. 

Section  I.  Not  Pre-existence. 

Section  II.  Not  Emanation. 

Section  III.  Not  a  Form  of  God. 

Section  IV.  Not  the  Product  of  Spontaneous  Gen- 
eration. 

Section  V.  Not  Accounted  for  by  Evolution. 

Section  VI.  Evolution  and  the  Scriptures. 

Section  VII.  A  Newer  Form  of  Evolution, 

Section  VIII.  Man  Created, 

Chapter       II.     THE    DESCENT    OR    PROPAGATION 
OF  MAN. 

Section         I.     Creationism. 
Section        II.      Traducianism. 


Chapter      III.     THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  MAN. 

Section         I.      How  long  has  man  lived  on  the  earth? 
Section        II.      Reasons  assigned  for  a  great  antiquity. 

Chapter      IV.     THE  NATURE  OF  MAN. 

Section  I.  Dychotomy. 

Section  II.  Trichotomy. 

Section  III.  The  Unity  of  the  Soul. 

Section  IV.  Relation  of  Soul  to  Soul. 

Section  V.  Free  Agency. 

Chapter       V.     THE  ORIGINAL  STATE  OF  MAN. 

Section  I.     As  to  His  Body. 

Section        II.     As  to  His  Soul. 
Section       III.      Pelagian    View   as    to   Man's   Original 

State. 
Section       IV.      Romish    View    as    to    Man's    Original 

State. 

—73— 


Chapter      VI.     THE  COVENANT  OF  WORKS. 


Section 

I. 

Statement. 

Section 

II. 

What  is  a  Covenant? 

Section 

III. 

Evidences  of  such  a  Covenant. 

Section 

IV. 

In    the    Covenant    Adam    Represented 
Posterity. 

Section 

V. 

Probation. 

lapter    VII. 

THE  FALL  OF  MAN. 

Section 

I. 

Was  There  a  Fall? 

Section 

II. 

Two  Difficulties. 

Section 

III. 

Observations. 

Chapter  VIII.     RELATION   OF   ADAM   TO   POSTER- 
ITY. 

Section  I.      Scriptural  Statement. 

Section        II.      Explanation. 


Chapter      IX.     SIN. 


Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 
Section 
Section  VII. 
Section  VIII. 
Section  IX. 
Section        X. 


I. 

II. 
III. 
IV. 

V. 
VI. 


The  Fact  of  Sin, 

Definitions  of  Sin. 

Nature  of  Sin. 

Orig-inal  Sin. 

Total  Depravity. 

Pelagian  View  of  Sin. 

Semi-Pelagian  View  of  Sin. 

Roman  Catholic  View  of  Sin. 

Arminian  View  of  Sin. 

View  of  Pantheistic  Theologians. 


Chapter  X.     INABILITY. 

Section  I.  Various  .Views. 

Section  II.  What  Inability  is  not. 

Section  III.  The  Doctrine  of  Inability. 

Section  IV.  Proof  of  Inability. 

Section  V.  What  Can  Man  Do  in  His  Salvation? 

Section  VI.  Objections  Answered. 


-/4- 


PART  SECOND:    ANTHROPOLOGY. 

"Anthropolog-y"  is  a  word  derived  from  two  Greek 
words,  "anthropos"  man,  and  "logos"  discourse.  Therefore. 
Anthropolog"y  is  the  doctrine-  concerning-  man.  Strictly 
speaking  concerning  his  origin,  nature,  fall  and  sin;  but 
not  concerning  man  as  the  subject  of  grace  as  that  belongs 
to  the  division  of  Theology  called  Soteriology. 

Chapter  I.    The  Origin  of  Man. 

Section  I.  Not  Pre-existence.  No  record  of  it.  No 
proof  of  it.  No  memory  or  consciousness  of  it.  Bible 
shows  creation;  and  that  all  sprang  from  Adam.  If  pre- 
existence  be  assumed  man  must  be  either  eternally  pre- 
existent  or  created  by  God,  in  that  pre-existent  state. 
Applies  only  to  the  soul. 

Section  II.  Not  Emanation,  from  the  substance  of 
God. 

1.  Because  emanation  implies  that  the  substance  of 
God  can  become  corrupt  and  this  is  derogatory  to  the 
character  of  God. 

2.  Substance  is  that  in  which  attributes  inhere  and  if 
we  partake  of  God's  substance  we  would  possess  the  attri- 
butes of  omniscience,  infinity,  etc. 

Section  III.     Not  a  form  of  God,  which  is  Pantheism. 

God  and  man  are  separate  being^s,  not  confounded  or 
blended. 

Section  IV.  Not  the  product  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion. 

Science  knows  of  no  spontaneous  generation  of  anj^ 
kind. 

Section  V.     Not  accounted  for  by  Evolution. 

1.  Evolution  is  a  process  and  a  process  does  not  ori- 
ginate anything. 

2.  Darwin  believed  that  God  created  the  first  form  or 
forms  of  life,  a  very  few,  and  all  genera  and  species  arose 
from  such  starting  point. 

3.  Later  evolutionists  like  Haeckel  asserted  that  life 
originated  from  the  molecular  motion  of  dead  matter  and 
developed  into  all  subsequent  forms  of  living  beings. 

—75— 


4.     Objections  to  Evolution. 

(a)  No  example  of  transmutation  of  species  ever 
known. 

(b)  No  missing"  links  ever  found.  Would  require 
thousands  of  links. 

(c)  Science  shows  great  gaps  between  different  species 
and  that  each  came  without  known  antecedents  in  the 
lineal  descent.^ 

(d)  Not  sufficient  time. 

(e)  Sterility  of  hybrids. 

(f)  Earliest  remains  of  man  are  of  high  development. 

(g)  Vast  superiority  of  man  over  animals. 

(h)  Degeneration.  A  late  theory  is  that  the  ape  de- 
generated from  man. 

(i)  Opposed  by  the  greatest  scientists:  Agassiz,  Lord 
Kelvin,  Virchow,  et  al. 

(j)   Haeckel's  Embryological  Plates. 

(k)  Some  later  geological  discoveries  reverse  in  some 
measure  the  order  in  which  life  was  supposed  to  appear 
on  the  globe.  Pre-Cambrian  strata  and  fossils  supposedly 
old  lie  on  top  of  Cretaceous  strata  and  fossils  supposedly 
young.  This  over  wide  areas,  reversing  the  evolutionary 
order  in  loco. 

(1)  Admission  of  Evolutionists. 

Darwin  said  in  i860,  "I  have  never  for  a  moment 
doubted  that,  though  I  cannot  see  my  errors,  much  of  my 
book  (The  Origin  of  Species)  will  be  proved  erroneous"; 
and  again  in  1862,  "I  look  at  it  as  absolutely  certain  that 
very  much  of  the  'Origin'  will  be  proved  rubbish;  but  I 
expect  and  hope  that  the  framework  will  stand." 

Huxley  said:  "In  vain  have  the  links  that  should 
bind  man  to  monkey  been  soug'ht:  not  a  single  one  is 
there  to  show.  The  so-called  Protanthropos  who  should 
exhibit  this  link  has  not  been  found.  None  have  been 
found  that  stood  nearer  the  monkey  than  the  men  of  to- 
day." 

Huxley  at  one  time  believed  that  he  had  found  the 
nexus  between  the  animate  and  inanimate  world  in  the 
deep  sea  ooze  which  he  named  Bathybius.     He  afterwards 


i"It  is  evident  that  there  is  a  manifest  progress  in  the  succession 
of  beings  on  the  surface  of  the  earth.  Among  the  vertebrates  there 
is  an  increasing  resemblance  to  man.  But  this  connection  is  not 
the  consequence  of  a  direct  lineage  between  the  faunas  of  different 
ages.  There  is  nothing  like  parental  descent  connecting  them.  The 
fisher  of  the  Palaeozoic  age  are  in  no  respect  the  ancestors  of  the 
reptiles  of  the  Secondary  age;  nor  does  man  descend  from  the 
mammals  which  preceded   him  in   the  Tertiary   age." — Agassiz. 

-76- 


gave  up  the  theory  for  very  good  reasons.  He  subsequent- 
ly declared  a  link  to  be  found  connecting  the  horse  with 
the  four-toed  Orohippus.  Others  dispute  the  validity  of 
the  argument.  It  is  doubtful  if  the  supposed  link  is  a  toe, 
and  at  any  rate  the  variety  of  form  is  within  the  limits  of 
the  equine  species  and  therefore  not  a  proof  of  the  trans- 
inutation  of  species. 

(m)   Conversion  of  Evolutionists. 

Romanes,  in  his  earlier  years  an  avowed  evolutionist, 
later  renounced  it.  Mivart,  who  once  considered  evolu- 
tion sufficient  to  account  for  man's  body,  later  held  that 
it  could  account  for  neither  his  body  nor  his  soul,  and 
called  natural  selection  "a  puerile  hypothesis." 

Prof.  Virchow,  formerly  an  advocate  of  Haeckel's 
views,  subsequently  declared:  "It  is  all  nonsense.  It  can- 
not be  proved  by  science  that  man  descends  from  the  ape 
or  any  other  animal.  Ever  since  the  announcement  of  the 
theory  all  real  scientific  knowledge  has  proceeded  in  the 
opposite  direction." 

(n)  The  arguments  for  Evolution  based  on  structural 
similiarities,  embryonic  development,  rudimentary  organs, 
reversion  to  type,  pathological  conditions  and  remedial 
agencies,  are  met  by  counter  explanations;  and  are  incon- 
clusive against  the  mass  of  evidence  on  the  other  side. 

Section  VI.  Evcflution  and  the  Scriptures.  How  far 
do  they  agree? 

1.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  God  created  man. 

2.  The  Scriptures  do  not  declare  HOW  God  created 
man,  whether  instantaneously,  or  by  process  of  develop- 
ment. 

The  Scriptures  declare  that  God  formed  man's  body  of 
the  dust  of  the  ground.  It  is  possible  to  understand  this 
as  brute  dust  as  well  as  inanimate  dust;  development  of 
man's  body  from  the  animal  being  regarded  as  God's  way 
of  forming  that  body. 

Some  hold  that  man's  body  was  derived  from  the 
animal  form,  while  his  soul  was  a  creation  de  novo. 
Others  hold  that  both  body  and  soul  were  derived  from 
the  animal  but  by  special  superintendence  and  contribu- 
tion by  God.    This  is  the  view  of  theistic  evolutionists. 

It  is  possible  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  from  the 
standpoint  of  theistic  evolution;  but  impossible  from  the 
standpoint  of  a  materialistic  evolution. 

—77— 


3.  Evolution  toward  the  g'oal  of  man,  requires  intelli- 
g;ent  choice  on  the  part  of  the  author  of  the  process. 

No  evolution  is  possible  without  an  innate  tendency 
to  variation;  that  innate  tendency  requires  a  cause  and 
implies  a  purpose;  and  a  law  of  variation  that  can  persist, 
throug-h  countless  ages,  and  myriads  of  forms,  till  it 
reaches  its  g"oal  in  "the  crown  of  creation"  forever  settles 
the  question  of  materialistic  evolution.  Through  all  the 
forms  of  life  "one  increasing  purpose  runs." 

4.  The  question  of  evolution  per  se,  as  a  method  of 
divine  working',  is  not  to  be  settled  so  much  by  the  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  as  by  the  investigations  of  science. 
It  is  essentially  a  scientific  question  and  is  to  be  met  on 
scientific  g-rounds.  The  Theologian  deals  with  it  only  be- 
cause it  injects  itself  into  the  realm  of  God's  relation  to 
the  world  and  to  man. 

The  arg"uments  pro  and  con  are  many;  but  the  balance 
of  arg^ument  at  the  present  time  seems  decidedl^^  ag'ainst 
evolution;  at  least  in  its  Darwinian  form. 

5.  Evolution  is  important  to  the  theologian  because 
evolutionists  have  used  the  theory  to  reconstruct  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Scriptures.  As  used  by  them  it  affects  many 
fundamental  doctrines,  e.g".  creation,  man,  the  fall,  sin, 
Christ,  the  incarnation,  atonement,  etc.  etc. 

Section  VII.  A  newer  form  of  Evolution  is  not  so 
objectionable. 

The  newer  form  of  evolution  supposes  that  instead  of 
transmutation  of  species  there  was  one  form  or  germ  ori- 
ginated for  EACH  species,  and  that  each  species  devel- 
oped from  its  own  primordial  g^erm. 

Section  VIII.     Man's  Origin  was  in  Creation  by  God. 

1.  Either  full  g-rown  or  developed  from  some  specific 
form  created  bj^  God.  Gen.  2:7  shows  a  mediate  creation 
as  regards  man's  body  and  an  immediate  creation  as  re- 
g"ards  his  soul.  Whether  the  mediate  creation  was  by  fiat 
or  development  from  some  prior  form  nothing"  is  said. 

2.  Created  a  single  pair  (Some  think  more  than  one 
pair,  e.g.  Agassiz). 

(a)    Bible  proof. 
Gen.   1:27.     Male  and  female  created  he  them. 
Rom.   5:12.     Through   one  man  sin   entered   into   the  world,   and 
so  death  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  sinned. 

-78- 


I.  Cor.   15:22.     For  as  in  Adam  all  die — 

Acts:   17:26.     And  hath  made  of  one   (blood)   all  men. 

The  unity  of  the  human  race  underlies  the  doctrine  of 
orig-inal  sin  by  virtue  of  Adam's  fall. 

(b)  Lang-uag-e. 

The  gfreat  similarity  of  roots  in  primitive  languages 
points  to  a  unity  of  language  in  the  earliest  days.  It  has 
been  shown  that  the  earlj^  Egyptian  was  derived  from  the 
Babylonian,  and  the  Babylonian  was  a  mixture  of  Sumer- 
ian  and  Semitic.  So  too,  similarities  have  been  traced  be- 
tween the  Chinese  and  the  Accadian. 

A  bear  in  Ethiopian  is  called  Deb,  in  Hebrew  Dob,  in 
Aramean  Debba,  in  Arabic  Dubb.  This  indicates  a  com- 
mon origin  for  these  races  and  incidentally  shows  that  the 
fatherland  was  a  place  where  bears  are  familiar  objects. 

"About  170  roots  serve  to  connect  tog'ether  the  various 
groups  of  Asiatic  languag^es  and  of  these  about  fifty  are 
still  traceable  throug"hout  the  entire  number,  that  is  to  say 
in  Accadian,  Eg"yptian,  Arj'-an,  Semitic  and  Mongolic 
speech  alike." — Conder. 

Unity  of  languag'e  is  strong  evidence  of  unity  of  race. 

(c)  One  Blood. 

The  law  of  sterility  of  hybrids  does  not  apply  to  the 
human  race.  The  union  of  different  families  or  races  uni- 
formly proving  fertile.  The  most  diverse  types  thus  prove 
themselves  to  be  of  one  blood. 

(d)  It  is  easier  to  account  for  divergence  from  one 
source  than  to  account  for  manifest  unity  from  diverse 
sources. 

(e)  The  tendency  of  scientific  thought  is  to  unity  not 
only  of  mankind;  but  also  of  animals  and  man.  The  ten- 
dency to  unity  has  even  run  to  extremes. 

(f)  The  mental,  moral  and  spiritual  natures  of  all 
men  are  identical. 

(g)  Differences  are  due  to  environment. 

The  Irish  driven  from  their  homes  two  hundred  3"ears 
ag-o  have  developed  a  prog"nathous  physiognomy. 

The  Jews  are  fair  in  one  latitude,  olive  in  another  and 
black  in  Africa.  Missionaries  spending  years  in  Africa 
have  changed  several  shades  in  color  of  skin. 

Rawlinson  says  that  Negroes  are  not  represented  on 
the  Egyptian  monuments  before  1500  B.C. 

3.  Man  occupies  a  mid-position  between  nature  and 
God,  filling  the  vast  hiatus  between  the  material  and  spir- 
itual with  a  body  that  relates  him  to  earth  and  a  spiritual 
nature  that  relates  him  to  God. 

—79— 


4.  Without  man  there  would  be  none  to  appreciate 
God's  material  creation  and  none  on  earth  to  enter  into 
communion  with  God. 

5.  The  Creation  of  Woman. 

We  have  the  account  of  the  formation  of  woman  in 
Gen.  2:21-23. 

(a)  One  view  is  that  this  is  a  pictorial  view  of  some- 
thing- that  took  place  in  the  evolution  of  man's  ancestral 
line,  his  phylogenetic  history,  by  which  the  sexes  were 
separated  from  a  common  stock. 

(b)  Some  one  has  supposed  that  Adam  and  Eve  were 
created  twins,  joined  by  some  cartilag-enous  bond,  like  the 
Siamese  twins;  that  this  was  severed  at  an  early  period 
resulting-  in  two  complete  persons  of  opposite  sex. 

(c)  Another  view  is  that  the  original  man  was  bi- 
sexual. 

The  Jews  have  a  tradition  that  Adam  was  created 
double-sexed,  and  that  the  two  sexes  were  afterward  sep- 
arated.    The  Hindus  have  a  similar  account. 

These  hermaphroditic  explanations  may  be  plausible? 
guesses,  but  no  verification  is  now  possible. 

(d)  We  have  the  account  in  Genesis,  which  gives  us 
too  few  details  on  which  to  construct  a  theorj^  and  leaves 
us  in  entire  ignorance  of  the  process  of  woman's  forma- 
tion. 

The  Bible  has  little  to  say  for  the  purpose  of  gratify- 
ing curiosity.  All  it  sees  fit  to  tell  us  is  that  man  and 
woman  have  a  common  Creator,  and  a  common  nature; 
and  are  supplemental  to  each  other  for  their  own  good 
and  for  God's  purpose  concerning  the  human  race. 


Chapter  II.    The  Descent  or  Propagation  of  Man. 

Man  is  a  race  or  a  species.  A  bond  of  nature  unites 
all  mankind.  Angels  are  sexless  and  therefore  are  not  a 
race  or  species  and  have  no  common  history  or  common 
character.  But  man  is  a  race,  descending  one  from 
another,  and  all  from  one  pair. 

Theology  does  not  consider  the  descent  or  propaga 
tion  of  the  body.     That  is  left  to  Ph^^siology. 

—80— 


But  the  theological  question  is  this:     Is  the  soul  of 
man  derived  from  the  parents  as  the  body  is? 
There  are  two  views: — 

Section  I.     Creationism. 

This  view  asserts  that  the  soul  is  not  derived  from  the 
parents,  but  is  created  de  novo  for  everj^  individual  born 
into  the  world.    Because  of: — 

1.  The  indivisibility  of  the  soul  substance. 

2.  Scriptural  language. 

Is.  57:16.     The  souls  that  I  have  made. 

Eccles.  12:7.  Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was, 
and   the  spirit   to   God  who  gave   it. 

Heb.  12:9.  Fathers  of  our  flesh — Father  of  spirits.  (Observe  no 
"our  in   the  last  clause,   therefore  not  our  spirits.) 

Zech.  12:1.  The  Lord  who  formeth  the  spirit  of  man  within 
him. 

Observe, — these  passages  can  be  understood  to  refer  to 
mediate  creation  as  well  as  immediate. 

3.  The  person  of  Christ. 

If  Christ's  human  soul  was  derived  from  human  kind 
would  it  not  partake  of  our  common  sinfulness? 

The  traducianist  answers  this  by  saying  that  as 
Christ's  birth  was  a  supernatural  event  at  any  rate,  his 
human  nature  was  preserved  from  the  taint  of  sin  by 
supernatural  sanctification. 

4.  Individuality  is  urged  as  an  argument  for  Crea- 
tionism.   Children  often  differ  much  from  their  parents. 

Answer  to  argument  from  individuality: 
Children  have  two  parents  and  a  conibination  of  traits 
may  produce  traits  different  from  both. 

Again  heredity  draws  from  remote  ancestors.  Every 
person  has  two  parents,  four  grandparents,  eight  great- 
grandparents,  and  every  further  step  is  multiplied  by  two. 
Here  is  sufficient  cause  of  variety  and  individuality^ 

Section  II.     Traducianism. 

Traducianism  means  that  man's  soul  is  derived  from 
the  parents  and  therefore  mankind  is  a  race  or  species  in 
regard  to  soul  as  well  as  body. 

The  arguments  for  this  view  are: 

1.  The  fact  of  hereditary  traits  in  our  mental  and 
moral  make-up. 

—81— 


2.  It  accounts  for  the  transmission  of  our  sinful 
nature  from  Adam  to  posterity. 

3.  Otherwise  it  is  hard  to  maintain  the  justice  of  God 
in  the  punishment  of  inherited  sin. 

4.  It  is  chfficult  for  Creationism  to  explain  how  each 
created  soul  is  sinful. 

5.  Traducianism  best  accounts  for  the  universality  of 
sin.  Among  angels  some  fell  and  some  did  not  because 
there  was  no  racial  connection;  and  no  transmission  of 
sinful  nature  from  one  to  another. 

6.  Traducianism  admits  the  concurrence  of  the  im- 
manent God  in  all  the  traduction  of  the  human  race  as  his 
providence,  power,  and  purpose  are  over  all  things. 

7.  Scripture  passages  favoring  traducianism. 

The  Scriptures  do  not  make  this  point  a  matter  of 
defiinite  teaching,  and  all  appeal  to  Scripture  texts  is  an 
effort  to  discover  by  inference  how  the  matter  was  regard- 
ed by  the  writers. 

However  very  valuable  suggestions  are  thus  derived. 

Some  passages  are  as  follows: 

Jno.  1:13.  Born,  not  of  blood.  This  contrasts  spiritual  birth 
with   natural,   implying  that  natural  birth   is   traducian. 

Jno.  3:6.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that 
which  is  born  of  the  spirit  is  spirit.  In  this  citation  the  word 
flesh  is  understood  to  mean  the  whole  man  as  unregenerate. 

Rom.  1:3.  Concerning  his  Son  who  was  born  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh. 

Rom.  5:12.  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world  and  death 
by  sin  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  sinned. 

I.  Cor.  15:22.     As  in  Adam  all  die. 

Ephes.  2:3.     By  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others. 

Heb.  7:10.  For  he  (Levi)  was  yet  in  the  loins  of  his  father 
when  Melchizedek  met  him. 

NOTE:     Each  view  faces  a  difficulty. 

Creationism: — How  explain  the  sinful  nature  of  each 
created  soul? 

Traducianism: — How  can  an  indivisible  substance 
transmit  itself? 


—,9' 


Chapter  III.    The  Antiquity  of  Man. 

Section  I.    How  long  has  man  lived  on  the  earth? 

The  common  belief  has  been  about  6000  years.  This 
is  due  to  Usher's  chronology  found  in  the  margin  of  many 
Bibles.  Usher's  chronology  is  based  on  the  Hebrew  text 
but  is  rather  uncertain  for  the  early  periods,  because  the 
genealogical  lists  are  evidently  not  complete.  The  lists 
subsequent  to  Abraham  are  condensed,  and  evidently  so 
before  that  time.  So  difficult  to  form  an  accurate  chronol- 
ogy. The  chronology  derived  from  the  LXX  would  make 
the  human  period  about  7500.  There  is  also  some  diffi- 
culty in  understanding  Hebrew  statements  of  numbers. 
Conservative  geologists  say  that  10,000  years  are  sufficient 
for  all  scientific  problems  involved. 

When  men  quote  millions  of  years,  take  it  with  sev- 
eral grains  of  salt. 

Section  II.  Reasons  assigned  for  a  great  antiquity  of 
man. 

(a)  Inventions  supposed  to  mark  different  ages,  stone 
age,  iron  age,  bronze  etc.  These  not  successive  but  con- 
temporaneous. There  was  a  stone  age  in  America  only  a 
few  hundred  years  ago. 

(b)  Human  remains  found  in  strata  deeply  buried. 
The  question  is,  how  did  they  get  there?  Maybe  washed 
there  through  holes  or  buried  in  caves  now  fallen  in,  or 
burrowing  beasts  carried  them,  or  convulsions  of  nature 
buried  them.  Earthquakes  often  sink  one  area  and  raise 
another. 

A  brick  found  in  the  Nile  sand  was  supposed  to  be  of 
great  antiquity,  till  another  was  found  much  deeper  with 
a  modern  inscription. 

How  long  does  it  take  for  a  brick  to  sink  into  a 
quagmire? 

Skeleton  and  boat  in  sand  of  Mississippi. 

Coins,  axes,  and  arms  in  peat  bogs  of  Europe,  mostly 
Roman. 

(c)  Human  remains  associated  with  bones  of  animals 
now  extinct. 

Cannot  prove  that  both  are  of  same  age. 

The  flood  may  have  washed  them  together  into  the 
same  strata  or  into  caves,  or  sea  currents  washed  them 
where  found  on  sea  coasts. 

(d)  Caucasians  and  Negroes  are  plainly  on  the 
monuments,  and  it  must  have  taken  a  long  time  previously 

—83- 


to  develop  the  differences  in  the  races.  We  cannot  tell 
how  long-  it  took  to  differentiate  the  Mongolian,  Cauca- 
sian, and  Negro,  or  whether  some. such  differences  were  in 
Shem,  Ham,  and  Japhet. 

The  Bible  does  not  g'ive  us  any  statement  as  to  the 
age  of  man  on  the  earth.  However  it  is  wise  to  discount 
all  extravagant  claims. 

Chapter  IV.    The  Nature  of  Man. 

Gen.  2:7.  The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust'of  the  ground 
and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a 
living  soul. 

Section  I.  Dychotomy.  According  to  Gen.  2:7  man  is 
composed  of  two  substances,  and  only  two,  body  and  soul. 

1.  The  body  is  material  substance;  the  soul  is  spirit- 
ual substance,  or  spirit.  Substance  is  that  which  has  be- 
ing, potency  and  properties;  it  is  that  in  which  attributes 
inhere. 

The  attributes  or  properties  of  matter  are  bulk, 
weight,  hardness,  etc. 

The  attributes  of  spirit  are  thought,  volition,  affection, 
etc. 

These  substances  are  different  because  their  properties 
or  attributes  are  different  and  opposite.  The  properties  of 
matter  do  not  belong  to  spirit,  and  the  attributes  of  spirit 
do  not  belong  to  matter. 

These  two  substances  constitute  man.  The  body  is 
matter;  the  soul  is  spirit.  There  are  no  other  substances. 
All  substance  is  either  matter  or  spirit.  The  soul  vivities 
the  body.  When  the  soul  is  withdrawn  the  body  is  dead. 
The  soul  is  the  seat  of  the  personality. 

2.  Proof  of  Dychotomy. 

(a)  We  know  ourselves  as  body  and  soul.  The  testi- 
mony of  consciousness  is  favorable  to  Dychotomy. 

(b)  In  the  record  of  man's  creation  there  is  mention 
of  body  and  soul,  and  no  more. 

(c)  The  Scriptures  frequently  mention  the  two  ele- 
ments. 

I.  Ki.   17:21.     Let  the  child's  soul  come  to  him  again. 
Eccles.    12:7.      The    dust    returneth   to    the   earth    as   it   was,    and 
the  spirit  unto  God  who  gave  it. 

Jas.   2:26.     The   body  apart   from   the   spirit   is  dead. 
Matt.   10:28.     Able   to  destroy  both  body  and  soul  in   hell. 
I.  Cor.  5:3.     For  I  being  absent  in  body  but  present  in  spirit. 

—84- 


(d)  In  the  Scriptures  soul  and  spirit  are  used  int^r- 
chang"eably. 

Gen.  41:8.     His   spirit   was   troubled. 

Ps.  42:6.     O  my  God  my  soul  is  cast  down  within  me. 

Jno.  12:27.     Now  is  my  soul  troubled. 

Jno.   13:21.     He  was  troubled  in  spirit. 

3.  The  relation  of  the  soul  and  body  to  each  other  is 
mysterious  if  not  incomprehensible.  How  the  body  acts 
on  the  mind  and  how  the  mind  acts  on  the  body  we  cannot 
understand  though  we  experience  such  action  daily. 

The  mind  bids  the  body  act  and  it  acts.  The  body 
conveys  impressions  of  the  external  world  to  the  mind 
and  the  mind  receives  the  same. 

Emotions  of  the  mind  affect  the  body,  e.g.,  blush. 

Diseases  of  the  body,  especially  of  the  brain,  affect 
and  disorder  the  mind. 

The  manner  of  union  between  the  mind  and  body  is 
inscrutable. 

Section  II.  Trichotomy.  Trichotomy  is  the  view  that 
man  is  composed  of  body,  soul  and  spirit.  This  is  a  mis- 
conception. There  are  only  two  substances  in  man:  body 
and  spirit.  The  misconception  arises  from  the  relation  of 
the  spirit  to  the  body.^  The  soul  or  spirit  vivifies  the  body 
and  this  life  is  sometimes  conceived  of  as  a  separate  entity 
or  substance;  but  is  only  a  special  relation  of  the  soul  to 
the  body. 

In  I.  Th.  5:23  Paul  uses  the  expression  "Spirit  and  soul 
and  body"  doubtless  to  express  man  in  his  totality,  his 
spiritual  nature,  his  bodily  nature  and  his  earthly  life. 

Heb.  4:12  speaks  of  dividing"  the  soul  and  spirit,  how- 
ever not  in  the  sense  of  separating  one  from  the  other,  but 
cutting,  or  smashing"  throug-h,  as  you  might  cut  a  stick 
into  two  pieces.  It  does  not  imply  two  things  but  cutting 
in  two  a  single  thing. 

The  words  soul  and  spirit  are  used  interchangeably. 

Sometimes  the  word  mind  is  used  for  soul  though 
properly  the  word  mind  expresses  the  cognitive  powers  of 
the  soul  or  spirit. 

In  the  account  of  man's  creation  we  have  mention  of 
only  two  substances,  the  one  matter,  the  other  spirit. 

In  the  account  of  man's  death  Eccl.  12:7  only  two 
substances.  Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it 
was  and  the  spirit  to  God  who  gave  it. 

l"The   distinction   between   psyche   and   pneuma   is   a   functional, 
and   not   a  substantial,  distinction." — Goodwin. 

—85— 


Again  the  power  of  worship  or  adoration  is  ascribed 
to  the  souL  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thy  soul,"  etc.  Nothing  higher  could  be  ascribed  to  the 
spirit. 

Again,  it  is  the  soul  that  is  saved. 

Jas.  1:21.     Able  to  save  the  soul. 

Mk.  8:36.     Gain  the  world  and  lose  his  soul. 

Nothing  more  could  be  said  of  the  spirit. 

The  spirit  is  not  something  higher  than  the  soul,  nor 
different  from  the  soul;  but  one  and  the  same. 

As  to  the  distinction  between  "soul"  and  "spirit" 
perhaps  it  is  best  to  say  that  soul  refers  to  the  immaterial 
part  of  man  regarded  as  a  human  personality  while  spirit 
refers  to  that  same  immaterial  part  with  reference  to  its 
constituent  substance,  or  as  to  its  divine  origin. 

Section  III.  The  soul  is  indivisible  either  as  to  parts 
or  action.  It  is  not  one  part  of  the  soul  that  thinks, 
another  part  that  feels  and  another  that  wills;  but  the 
whole  soul  that  thinks,  feels,  wills  etc. 

Cognition,  volition,  affection,  etc.,  are  not  divisions 
of  the  mind  or  soul,  but  a  classification  of  the  activities 
of  the  soul. 

Section  IV.     The  Relation  of  Soul  to  Soul. 

(i)  Individualism.  Each  soul  is  an  individual  sub- 
sistence, separate  in  its  consciousness  and  activities  from 
all  other  souls;  of  the  same  kind,  but  not  the  same  nu- 
merical substance  as  the  souls  of  his  fellow-men. 

(2)   Realism    (Better  call   it  Commonism). 

Realism  teaches  that  men  are  not  individual  souls; 
but  that  a  common  scul-substance  or  spirit  pervades  the 
human  race.  That  is,  that  the  same,  single,  numerically- 
one  substance  constitutes  the  souls  of  all  the  race.  Thus 
your  soul  and  my  soul  and  the  souls  of  all  inen  are  nu- 
merically but  one  substance. 

Illustration:  Your  suits  of  clothes  made  all  of  one 
web  without  cutting  one  suit  apart  from  the  others. 
Waves  of  the  sea  different  in  form,  but  all  one  body. 

Objections  to  Realism: — 

(a)  This  is  a  mere  supposition  without  proof. 

(b)  If  a  common  substance  constituted  our  souls, 
then  we  would  have  a  common  consciousness;  and  what 
I  thought  and  purposed,  you  would  know,  and  vice  versa. 

—86— 


(c)  This  would  make  all  men  one  man,  as  the  three 
persons  of  the  trinity  are  one  God. 

(d)  This  destroys  individuality  on  which  our  per- 
sonal responsibility  depends.  We  don't  want  to  surrender 
our  individual  personality. 

Section  V.     Free  Agency. 

There  are  three  main  theories  as  to  Free  Agency. 

1.  Fatalism.  This  doctrine  teaches  that  all  events 
are  determined  by  a  blind  necessity.  There  is  no  freedom 
of  the  individual;  no  liberty  of  choice;  no  self-determina- 
tion. All  thing's  must  be  as  they  are,  with  no  possibility  of 
being  different.    In  this  view  there  is  no  free  agency. 

The  cause  of  this  necessity  may  be  in  the  nature  of 
things,  or  the  uniformity  of  natural  laws  over  which 
there  is  no  intelligent  control,  or  even  in  the  decree  of 
God. 

Materialism  is  essentially  fatalistic. 

Pantheism  is  also  tinged  with  fatalism. 

Fatalism  destroys  all  responsibility  and  therefore  de- 
troys  all  morality. 

2.  The  independence  of  the  will;  or  the  self-determin- 
ing power  of  the  will.  By  this  is  meant  that  man's  will  is 
independent  of  his  other  faculties, — that  man  decides  or 
may  decide  irrespective  of  his  knowledge,  feelings,  con- 
science, desires,  inclinations,  or  inducements. 

If  so,  this  is  to  act  irrationally. 

Man  is  free  to  choose  but  the  will  does  not  act  regard- 
less of  all  considerations. 

Properly  speaking,  it  is  not  the  will  that  acts;  but  the 
whole  man  that  wills. 

3.  True  Free  Agency. 

Free  agency  means  that  a  man  acts  free  from  compul- 
sion by  some  external  power, — that  he  acts  in  accordance 
with  his  own  nature,— under  the  influence  of  his  know- 
ledge, desires,  feelings,  inclination  and  character. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  a  man  is  a  free  agent;  bids  him 
choose;  and  holds  him  responsible  for  his  choice. 

If  man  were  not  a  free  agent  he  would  have  ho  re- 
sponsibility. 

On  the  whole  a  man  acts  as  he  thinks  and  feels,  and 
in  accordance  with  his  character  or  nature. 

-87- 


4.  Relation  to  Reg"eneration. 

We  must  remember  here  that  reg'eneration  comes  in 
by  divine  intervention  to  change  the  nature  and  determine 
the  life. 

Man  is  not  an  agent  in  his  regeneration. 

This  new  creation  or  new  birth  is  not  a  violation  of 
free  agency  any  more  than  man's  creation  at  the  begin- 
ning. 

In  his  old  life  he  acted  in  accordance  with  his  sinful 
nature,  and  in  his  new  life  he  acts  in  accordance  with  his 
new  nature.  In  all  therefore  he  is  a  free  agent.  And  in 
his  regeneration  he  was  not  an  agent  at  all. 

5.  The  Will  in  Psychological  Discussion. 

The  age-long  debate  concerning  the  will  has  resolved 
the  disputants  into  two  main  classes:  Determinists  and 
Indeterminists. 

The  Indeterminist  says  that  man  exercises  his  will 
independently  of  any  other  faculty,  or  may  do  so,  that 
human  volition  is  spontaneous,  that  it  is  or  may  be  wholly 
undetermined  by  motives,  reasons,  inducements,  or  any- 
thing other  than  itself.  Whedon  teaches  that  man  may 
project  his  volitions  without  any  reason  whatever;  that 
each  volition  is  a  separate  and  distinct  creation  of  the 
soul  out  of  nothing. 

The  Determinist  says  that  human  volitions  are  deter- 
mined by  a  number  of  other  things  that  act  as  reasons, 
motives,  antecedents,  etc.,  controlling  the  exercise  of  the 
will  thus  or  so. 

There  are  however  two  classes  of  Determinists.  Spin- 
oza, Hobbes  and  Huxley  are  determinists;  so  also  are  Ed- 
wards, Hodge  and  Patton,  but  with  a  very  different  sort  of 
determinism.  The  first  trio  are  physical  determinists,  the 
latter  are  psychical  determinists. 

Physical  determinism  applies  physical  causation  to 
psychical  events.  Materialists  and  Pantheists  line  up  on 
this  ground;  to  the  detriment  of  all  responsibility  and 
morality.  This  doctrine  blots  out  the  soul,  and  makes 
man  little  better  than  a  machine,  operated  by  blind  forces. 

Psychical  determinism,  on  the  other  hand,  is  deter- 
mination by  character,  reason,  motives,  persuasions,  etc. 
recognizes  the  inter-relation  of  the  human  faculties,  the 
influence  of  character,  and  racial  antecedents,  and  the 
power  of  appeal  to  determine  the  will. 

It  recognizes  the  Ego  as  the  efficient  cause  or  agent 
of  the  volition;   and  that  he  is  a  free   agent,  not  acting 

—88— 


under  compulsion  from  without;  but  acting  in  accordance 
with  his  own  nature  as  a  rational  being-. 

In  Reformed  Theology  this  is  not  held  to  controvert 
the  sovereignty  of  God  in  Regeneration  or  in  the  commu- 
nication of  grace.  Man  acts  in  accordance  with  his  char- 
acter however  that  character  is  acquired. 

Between  Determinism  and  Indeterminism  there  has 
been  strenuous  debate.  Much  of  the  argument  against 
Determinism,  however,  is  applicable  only  as  against  phys- 
ical determinism,  which  all  theistic  philosophy  unites  in 
condemning;  but  as  against  psychical  determinism  the  ar- 
guments are  not  valid. 

Indeterminism  offers  the  following  arguments: 

(a)  That  it  is  supported  by  consciousness. 

But  it  is  more  than  doubtful  if  this  is  true.  Conscious- 
ness testifies  that  we  are  the  agents  in  our  volitions,  that 
we  are  free  agents,  but  not  that  the  volition  is  uninflu- 
enced by  the  contents  of  our  being;  or  by  anything  ab 
extra  or  ab  intra.  Rather  the  consciousness  tells  us  that 
our  volitions  are  determined  by  whatever  appeals  to  us 
most  powerfuly  at  the  time. 

(b)  It  is  said  that  the  will  can  decide  against  the 
strongest  motives.  Adam  decided  for  evil;  and  evil  is  a 
far  inferior  motive  than  good.  But  if  this  argument  is 
true,  it  is  only  true  when  by  "motive"  is  meant  something 
outside  of  the  mind  as  end  or  object,  and  not  the  motive 
in  the  mind  itself. 

What  seems  to  the  mind  most  desirable  at  the  time 
determines  the  choice  whether  intrinsically  the  best  or  the 
worst. 

(c)  It  is  said  that  we  sometimes  choose  when  there  is 
no  motive  for  choosing  this  rather  than  that. 

But  there  may  be  a  reason  which  we  cannot  perceive 
or  fail  to  perceive.  At  any  rate  the  rule  of  all  life  is  to 
choose  for  some  reason,  and  to  act  otherwise  is  to  act 
unintelligently. 

(d)  It  is  said  that  power  of  contrary  choice  is  neces- 
sary to  moral  responsibility. 

Moral  accountability  must  be  maintained  whatever  be 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  will,  but  this  argument  does  net 
support  indeterminism  any  more  than  it  does  determinism, 
unless  it  is  directed  against  a  physical  determinism  or 
fatalism. 

The  question  between  Determinism  and  Indetermin- 
ism is  this: — Why  does  the  agent  put  forth  this  volition 
rather  than  that?     What  determines  the  choice? 

—89— 


If  it  is  said  that  there  is  no  reason  for  such  choice,  the 
answer  is: — 

(a)  This  is  inconceivable. 

(b)  This  destroys  responsibility.  If  volition  does  not 
express  a  man's  character  then  there  is  neither  virtue  or 
blame  in  the  exercise  of  the  volition.  And  if  character 
does  not  determine  conduct  how  can  we  know  that  it  is 
not  the  bad  man  who  exhibits  good  behavior  and  the  g"ood 
man  who  is  filling"  the  world  with  bad  volitions? 

(c)  If  volitions  are  undetermined  by  character  then 
why  do  the  volitions  of  a  man  bear  any  similarity  or  uni- 
formity? 

Why  are  the  mean  man's  volitions  mean  and  the  mag- 
nanimous man's  volitions  generous? 

Indeterminism  has  no  answer  to  this  question. 

But  the  truth  in  the  case  is  that  a  good  tree  bringeth 
forth  good  fruit  and  an  evil  tree  evil  fruit. 

(d)  If  there  is  no  reason  for  human  volition  then  what 
becomes  of  character?  What  becomes  of  the  unity  of  life? 
Or  of  moral  accountability?  Or  of  all  efforts  to  influence 
men  by  argument  or  inducement  of  any  kind? 

(e)  We  must  choose  between  the  theory  that  niake> 
the  action  of  the  will  absolutely  fortuitous,  and  the  view 
that  regards  the  will  as  determined  by  character,  motive, 
or  mental  state  in  the  moment  preceding  volition. 

(For  thorough  discussion  see  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia, 
Article  "Will"  by  Francis  L.  Patton,  from  which  the  foregoing 
paragraph  has  been  largely  dtawn.) 


Chapter  V.    The  Original  State  of  Man. 
Section  I.    As  to  his  body. 

(a)  Seemingly  full  gTown. 

(b)  Immortal.  The  Scriptures  always  represent  death 
both  physical  and  spiritual  as  the  result  of  sin. 

If  man  had  not  sinned  then  not  subject  to  death. 

How  preserved  in  physical  being? 

The  original  constitution  of  man  was  evidently  of 
high  quality.  The  long"evity  of  the  patriarchs,  even  after 
sin  had  entered,  shows  a  remarkable  constitution.  And 
the  earliest  fossil  remains  of  man  show  him  highly  devel- 
oped. 


A  tree  of  life  was  in  the  gaiden,  Gen.  3:24.  It  is  again 
referred  to  in  the  end  of  Revelation  as  being  for  the  heal- 
ing of  the  nations. 

Or  translation  without  death,  as  in  the  case  of  Enoch, 
may  have  become  the  means  of  immortality.  As  to  this 
we  have  no  certain  information. 

(See  System  of  Christian  Theology,  H.   B.  Smith,  p.   259.) 

Section  II.    As  to  his  soul. 

(a)  Created  in  the  image  of  God. 

This  includes  knowledge,  holiness,  moral  nature,  ra- 
tional nature,  free  agency,  dominion,  etc. 

Man  was  created  capable  of  communion  with  God. 
The  implications  in  this  fact  are  many  and  important; 
bearing  on  the  being  of  God,  the  nature  of  God,  the 
apriori  certainty  of  a  revelation,  etc.,  etc. 

(b)  Shorter  Catechism  10:  How  did  God  create  man? 
God  created  man  male  and  female  after  his  own  image,  in 
knowledge,  righteousness  and  holiness  with  dominion  over 
the  creatures. 

Section  III.  Pelagian  doctrine  of  Man's  Original 
State. 

(a)  Man  created  mortal.  Would  have  died  like  all 
animals.    So  also  Russellism. 

(b)  Man  created  characterless;  neither  holy  nor  un- 
holy; neither  righteous  nor  unrighteous;  but  capable  of 
becoming  either. 

This  position  is  due  to  their  desire  to  make  man  re- 
sponsible only  for  his  acts  and  not  for  the  character  out  of 
which  the  acts  proceed.  But  the  Scripures  show  that  acts 
proceed  from  character. 

Section  IV.     Romish  view  of  Man's  Original  State. 

(a)  According  to  Romanism  man  was  created  soul 
and  body;  but  the  two  were  in  disharmony;  a  mutual  and 
natural  antagonism  between  soul  and  body.  This  per- 
tained to  man  as  he  came  from  the  hands  of  God. 

This  savors  of  Manichaeism  which  regards  man  as 
essentially  evil. 

But  Romanism  teaches  that  God  conferred  on  man  the 
added  gift  of  Original  Righteousness  to  harmonize  the 
conflicting  elements  of  body  and  soul. 

Accordingly  the  original  state  of  man  was  not  the 
perfect,  harmonious,  happy  condition  implied  in  the  state- 

—91— 


ment:     "God  saw  all  thing's  which  he  had  made  and  be- 
hold they  were  ver^-  good." 

Original  righteousness  was  therefore  not  a  con-created 
grace;  but  an  added  supernatural  gift. 

(b)  A  second  feature  of  this  Papal  anthropology  is 
that  apostasy  involves  the  loss  of  that  supernatural  gift; 
but  not  of  any  natural  and  original  grace. 

By  the  fall  man  reverts  to  the  condition  in  which  he 
was  by  creation,  a  conflict  between  flesh  and  spirit.  In 
losing  original  righteousness,  he  loses  nothing  with  which 
he  was  endowed  by  the  creative  act,  but  only  the  subse- 
quent gift. 

Original  righteousness  being  a  supernatural  gift,  ori- 
ginal sin  is  the  loss  of  it.  Original  sin  therefore  brings 
man  back  to  his  original  condition,  which  was  conceived 
of  as  neither  holy  nor  sinful;  but  yet  one  of  conflict  and 
disharmony.  This  conflict  arises  from  the  nature  of 
things,  or  by  creation  itself,  and  not  from  any  act  of  apos- 
tasy on  the  part  of  man. 

(c)  This  afli'ects  the  nature  of  original  sin  as  held  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  theolq.'j}'. 

Original  sin  is  therefore  not  truly  and  properly  sin. 
Man  is  born  in  the  same  negative  state  in  which  Adam 
was  created. 

Bellarmin  says:  "The  state  of  man  after  the  fall 
differs  no  more  from  the  state  of  man  as  created  in  puris 
naturalibus  than  a  man  originally  naked  differs  from  one 
who  was  clothed,  but  has  been  stripped  of  his  clothing; 
neither  is  human  nature  any  worse  (except  for  the  act  of 
transgression)  than  it  was  made  by  God." 

Section  V.  The  Evolutionist's  View  of  Man's  Original 
State. 

Primitive  man  is  the  culmination  of  animal  develop- 
ment. 

His  starting  point  is  the  point  where  the  animal  ar- 
rived at  self-consciousness  and  accountability^ 

There  was  no  fall;  but  rather  a  "stunibling"  upwards." 

Sin  is  the  remains  of  his  animal  nature. 

Sin  is  not  something  that  came  into  the  human  race 
after  its  creation;  but  something  that  belongs  to  the  ori- 
ginal nature  of  the  race,  and  inseparable  from  the  process 
of  creation. 

Original  sin  belongs  to  man's  original  nature  as  he 
came  from,  the  hands  of  his  creator. 


—92- 


Chapter  VI.    The  Covenant  of  Works. 

Section  I.    Statement. 

(a)  Conf.  7:2:  The  first  covenant  made  with  Adam 
was  a  covenant  of  works  wherein  life  was  promised  to 
Adam  and  to  his  posterity  upon  condition  of  perfect  and 
personal  obedience. 

(b)  Cat.  12:    What  special  act  of  providence,  etc. 

(c)  Gen.  2:17:  But  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  thou 
shalt  not  eat — in  day  eatest — die. 

Section  II.    What  is  a  covenant? 

(a)  An  agreement  between  two  or  more  persons. 

(b)  A  promise  suspended  on  a  condition. 

God  being  infinitely  superior  to  Adam  might  impose  a 
covenant  with  or  without  consent;  but  every  reason  to 
think  Adam  acquiesced  in  it. 

Section  III.    Evidences  of  such  a  covenant. 

(a)  Gen.  2:17. 

(b)  The  parties,  God  and  Adam. 

(c)  The  conditions,  Perfect  obedience. 

(d)  The  penalty,   death.     Both   natural   and  spiritual 

death. 

(e)  The  promise,  life.  More  than  natural  life;  he  had 
that.  The  promise  is  not  stated  in  the  narrative  but  im- 
plied as  the  alternative  of  death.  Spoken  of  in  Rom.  10:5 
and  Gal.  3:12. 

(f)  All  the  plan  of  redemption  is  presented  as  a  cove- 
nant, e.g.  to  Noah,  to  Abraham,  to  Israel.  Old  and  new 
dispensations  are  covenants.  So  evidently  here.  Here  are 
all  the  signs  and  parts  of  a  covenant. 

Section  IV.  In  this  covenant  Adam  represented  all  his 
posterity. 

Cat.  16:  Did  all  mankind  fall  in  Adam's  first  trans- 
gression? 

Section  V.  The  observance  of  this  covenant  for  a 
certain  time  constituted  a  probation. 

(a)  The  probation  was  fair. 

Adam  was  fortified  by  his  holy  nature,  happy  environ- 
ment, fellowship  with  God,  and  by  positive  warnings  and 
promises. 

(b)  Adam's  holiness  was  not  established  by  long  con- 
tinuance, he  was  not  indefectible,  and  he  yielded  to  the 

—93— 


insinuations  and  persuasion  of  Satan  and  fell  and  all  his 
posterity  with  him. 

Had  Adam  stood  the  test  his  character  would  have  be- 
come fixed  and  immutable  like  the  saints  in  heaven. 


Chapter  VII.    The  Fall  of  Man. 

Section  I.     \\'as  there  a  fall? 

(a)  Denied  bj^  evolutionists,  Pantheistic  and  other- 
wise. 

(b)  Taught  in  the  Bible.     Gen.  I.-III. 

Taught  in  Cat.  13.  Did  our  first  parents  continue  in 
the  estate  etc. 

Section  II.    Two  difficulties. 

(a)  A  psychological  difficultj"  How  could  a  holy  be- 
ing entertain  a  desire  to  sin?  How  could  a  sinful  volition 
originate  in  a  holy  will? 

If  volition  is  determined  by  desire  and  character  how 
can  a  holy  character  have  a  sinful  volition?  (See  System 
Christian  Theol.  H.  B.  Smith,  p.  263)  Temptation  was 
placed  before  them.  The  natural  desire  for  food  and 
knowledge  was  awakened,  and  inducements  were  present- 
ed that  led  to  an  exercise  of  their  free  agency  contrary  to 
their  own  good. 

The  act  was  not  sinful  per  se  but  because  forbidden. 

(b)  A  moral  difficulty:  Whj^  did  a  holy  God  permit 
sin?  (For  thorough  discussion,  see  System  Christian  The- 
ology, Henry  B.  Smith,  pp.  146-159.) 

Section  III.     Observations: — • 

(i)   God  could  have  prevented  sin. 

(2)  Permitted  it  for  reasons  that  we  do  not  know. 

(3)  Made  man  a  free  agent  to  choose  for  himself. 

(4)  Would  seem  that  sin  must  be  a  possibiliti^  where 
free  agency  is  a  fact. 

(5)  God  over-rules  sin  for  eventual  good. 

(6)  God's  love  is  more  evident  in  redemption  than  if 
man  had  never  sinned. 

(7)  After  all  is  said  the  origin  of  sin  must  ever  remain 
a  mystery  and  the  reason  for  it  inscrutable. 

—94— 


Chapter  VIII.    Relation  of  Adam  and  His  Sin  to  Posterity. 
Section  I.    Scriptural  Statement. 

Rom.  5:12.  By  one  man  sin  entered,  into  the  world  and  death 
by  sin,  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all   (have)  sinned. 

Rom.  5:14.  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses  even  over  those 
that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's   transgression. 

Rom.  5:17.     By  the  offence  of  one  death  reigned  by  one. 

Rom.  5:19.  As  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners,  etc. 

I.  Cor.  15:22.     For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  etc. 

Cat.  16,  Did  all  mankind  fall  in  Adam's  first  trans- 
gression? 

Section  11.     Explanation. 

(a)  There  has  been  much  debate  over  the  question 
whether  there  was  a  mediate  or  an  immediate  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin  to  the  race. 

A  mediate  imputation  means  throug"h  the  medium  of 
natural  generation  or  heredity. 

Immediate  imputation  means  a  direct  imputation 
without  any  medium  whatsoever. 

Did  the  penalty  of  sin  fall  on  the  human  race  direct- 
ly, or  indirectly  through  the  medium  of  an  inherited  cor- 
rupt nature? 

There  is  an  element  of  immediateness  in  the  fact  that 
death  is  the  direct  and  immediate  consequence  of  sin,  and 
so  far  as  any  human  race  was  involved  or  in  contempla- 
tion it  was  prospectively  dead  the  moment  that  Adam 
sinned. 

But  there  is  an  element  of  mediateness  in  the  fact  that 
the  corruption  of  nature  and  the  penalty  on  the  individual 
took  actual  effect  through  the  medium  of  natural  genera- 
tion or  transmission  of  nature. 

(b)  Federal  and  Natural  Headship. 

Adam  was  the  federal  head  of  his  race  because  he 
represented  them  and  stood  his  probation  for  them  as  well 
as  for  himself. 

But  Adam  was  the  natural  head  of  the  race,  and  the 
natural  headship  is  the  basis  of  the  federal  headship. 

Because  he  was  the  natural  head  he  was  the  federal 
head. 

Adam  stood  probation  for  the  race  and  they  lost  their 
probation  in  him.  The  race  fell  in  Adam  because  they 
were  substantially  though  not  individually  in  him.  Indi- 
viduality had  not  yet  arisen  for  his  posterity.  All  man- 
kind sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgres- 

—95— 


sion.  The  race  inherited  a  corrupt  and  sinful  nature, 
which  is  itself  under  condemnation  because  of  its  sinful- 
ness and  which  nature  is  the  root  of  actual  transgression 
in  the  individual. 

(c)  Another  explanation  is  called,  The  Theory  of 
Direct  Divine  Efficiency.  This  is  the  system  of  Samuel 
Hopkins  and  Nathaniel  Emmons,  New  England  theolo- 
gians.   Their  system  is  called  Hopkinsianism. 

Their  fundamental  position  was  that  all  holiness  and 
sin  are  in  the  exercises  of  man's  will;  and  there  is  no  holi- 
ness or  sin  in  the  nature  of  man  apart  from  these  exer- 
cises. That  is,  that  all  sin  consists  in  sinning.  If  man  has 
no  sinful  nature  out  of  which  his  sinful  acts  proceed,  how 
explain  the  sinful  deeds  of  the  whole  human  race? 

This  was  their  explanation: — God  in  his  sovereignty 
established  a  "constitution,"  or  divine  arrangement  in 
which  it  was  appointed  that  if  Adam  sinned,  all  his  pos- 
terity should  sin  in  their  first  moral  acts. 

This  was  attributed  to  the  decree  of  God  and  not  to 
the  sinfulness  of  an  inherited  nature. 

The  older  Hopkinsianism  did  not  admit  a  soul  prior 
to  action. 

These  objections  apply  to  this  view: — 

It  refers  the  sinfulness  of  the  race  to  the  divine  effi- 
ciency and  makes  God  the  author  of  human  sin. 

It  further  neglects  the  racial  unity  that  exists  in  the 
substantial  oneness  of  human  nature  under  the  law  of 
heredity. 

(d)  Another  hypothesis  is  that  of  Physical  Depravity. 
This  is  the  view  of  Nathaniel  Wm.  Taylor,  professor  of 
Dogmatic  Theology  in  Yale  College,  in  the  early  part  of 
the  19th  century. 

The  view  is,  that  by  Adam's  fall  man's  physical  con- 
stitution suffered  such  derangement  as  to  make  it  certain 
that  man  would  sin.  There  was  soul  prior  to  action  but  it 
was  innocent  or  neutral.  The  phj^sical  deterioration  de- 
termines the  fact  and  certainty  of  sin. 

Objections  to  this  view: — 

It  makes  sin  too  much  of  a  physical  thing  or  the 
result  of  a  physical  condition. 

Unless  regeneration  and  atonement  have  physical  ef- 
fects it  is  hard  to  see  how  they  apply  in  the  salvation  of 
man. 

It  minimizes  culpability  by  referring  sin  to  physical 
deterioration  which  in  itself  is  not  sin. 


-96- 


Chapter  IX.    Sin. 

Section  I.    The  fact  of  sin. 

1.  Proved  by  Scripture. 

Jer.  17:9.  The  heart  of  man  is  deceitful  above  measure  and 
desperately  wicked. 

Ps.  14:3.     There  is  none  that  doeth  good  no  not  one. 

Isa.  53:6.     All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray. 

Rom.  3:9.  We  have  before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  that 
they  are  all  under  sin. 

I.  Jno.  1:8.  If  We  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves 
and  the   truth  is  not  in  us. 

I.  John  1:10.  If  we  say  that  we  have  not  sinned  we  make  him 
a  liar,  and  his  word  is  not  in  us. 

2.  Proved  by  consciousness. 

Consciousness  distinguishes  between  pleasure  and 
pain;  between  happiness  and  misery;  between  perceptions 
and  intuitions. 

(a)  So  it  also  distinguishes  between  right  and  wrong. 
It  thus  bears  testimony  to  the  fact  of  evil. 

(hj  The  fact  of  sin  is  a  universal  conviction.  All 
nations  under  all  forms  of  religion  are  conscious  of  sin, 
and  that  sin  is  a  specific  thing  different  from  all  other  af- 
fections of  the  soul.  Man  everywhere  feels  himself  subject 
to  a  law  of  right  and  knows  that  he  ought  to  do  the  right 
and  refrain  from  the  wrong.  He  knows  also  that  he  has 
not  done  the  right  and  has  done  the  wrong. 

(c)  The  testimony  of  consciousness  goes  farther,  it 
leads  to  a  personal  God.  The  universal  human  heart  feels 
responsibility  to  a  being  higher  than  man  and  over  all 
men,  who  commends  or  condemns  him  in  conduct  and 
character.  The  sense  of  obligation  in  men  always  relates 
itself  to  a  being  who  may  be  pleased  or  displeased,  and 
that  being  and  his  will  constitute  the  law  of  right  and 
wrong. 

Thus  man's  innate  being  bears  witness  to  sin. 

Section  11.     Definitions  of  Sin. 

1.     The  Manichaean  View. 

(a)   Statement. 

This  old  philosophy  taught  that  matter  was  eternal 
and  sinful,  and  that  spirit  is  also  eternal  and  good. 

These  two  principles  are  intermingled  in  man.  He 
has  a  soul  from  the  kingdom  of  light,  and  a  body  from  the 
kingdom  of  darkness. 

—97— 


Sin  is  the  defilement  of  the  soul  by  union  with  a 
material  body;  and  must  be  overcome  by  destroying-  the 
influence  of  the  body  on  the  soul. 

(b)   Refutation. 

This  theory  destroys  man's  responsibility  by  making 
sin  essential  to  the  constitution  of  man  as  he  is  in  this 
world. 

It  makes  God  the  author  of  sin  in  giving-  man  a  body. 
If  sin  be  union  with  a  body,  then  redemption  must  be  the 
destruction  of  the  body;  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
Scriptures,  which  regard  the  soul  as  the  seat  of  sin,  and 
make  redemption  a  spiritual  and  not  a  physical  process. 

Again  all  men  regard  anger,  malice,  deceit,  revenge, 
etc.  as  sinful;  and  all  men  are  conscious  that  these  are  not 
affections  of  the  body. 

The  Roman  Catholic  view  of  sin  is  tinged  with  Alani- 
chaeism. 

The  system  leads  to  asceticism  as  a  means  to  moral 
betterment. 

2.  Limitation  of  Being  is  another  definition  of  sin; 
also  called  Finiteness. 

(a)   Statement. 

All  being  or  substance  is  good,  all  non-being  is  evil. 
God  is  the  Absolute  being  and  therefore  the  supreme  good. 
God  is  good  because  he  is  infinite;  the  world  has  a  share 
of  goodness  but  is  imperfect  because  finite. 

This  limitation  of  being  does  not  apply  merely  to 
physical  being  but  to  spiritual  being  also,  with  the  ignor- 
ance, mistakes,  the  blundering,  and  incapacity  incident  to 
imperfect  knowledge  and  limitation  of  powers.  This  is 
the  view  of  Spinoza,  Leibnitz,  Bauer  of  the  Tubingen 
school,  Biedermann.  Swiss  Protestant  ob.  1885,  a  disciple 
of  the  Hegelian  and  Tubingen  schools.  Also  the  view  of 
Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  and  of  Prof.  Josiah  Royce  of  Har- 
vard, and  others. 

It  is  a  Pantheistic  conception  of  sin  and  will  be  found 
where  Pantheism  has  tinged  men's  thought. 

Prof.  Royce  saj's:  "Evil  is  a  discord  necessary  to  per- 
fect harmony.  It  is  in  itself  evil,  but  in  relation  to  the 
whole  it  has  value  by  showing  its  own  finiteness  and  im- 
perfection." 

We  remark  that  discord  is  not  necessary  to  harmony 
and  in  no  way  constitutes  it.  Some  one  has  said:  "With- 
out black  we  would  never  be  able  to  know  white."  This  is 
a  fallacy.  Our  discriminating  differentiation  is  not  based 
wholly  upon  opposites.    These  assertions  are  made  to  im- 

-98- 


ply  that  evil  is  the  necessary  background  of  good.  The 
most  that  can  be  said  is  that  good  implies  the  POSSIBIL- 
ITY of  evil  but  never  its  necessity.  Emerson  taught  that 
man's  imperfection  is  not  sin,  and  that  the  cure  for  it  lies 
in  education. 

Biedermann  in  his  Dog"matik  writes:  "Evil  is  the  fin- 
iteness  of  the  world-being,  which  clings  to  all  individual 
existences,  by  virtue  of  their  belonging  to  the  immanent 
world-order." 

Bauer  saiys:  "Evil  is  what  is  finite,  for  the  finite  is 
neg^ative;  the  negation  of  the  infinite."  "If  other  beings 
than  God  are  to  exist,  there  must  be  in  them,  so  far  as 
they  are  not  infinite  as  God  is,  for  that  very  reason  a  min- 
imum of  evil."  Thus  all  men  are  evil  because  they  are 
finite  and  can  become  good  only  by  becoming  infinite  or 
by  becoming  God. 

This  theory  is  at  heart  Pantheistic.  In  Pantheism 
there  is  no  antagonism  between  God's  mind  and  man's, 
for  man  is  God  in  development.  There  is  therefore  no 
holy  law  objective  to  man  and  no  responsibility  to  a  high- 
er being,  since  man  himself  is  the  highest  being.  Sin  is 
therefore  only  an  incident  of  incompleteness;  the  imper- 
fection of  partial  development. 

(b)   Refutation. 

First;  This  contradicts  our  moral  nature.  No  man 
regards  himself  guilty  because  he  is  finite;  and  feels  it 
would  be  unjust  to  punish  him  for  it. 

Second;  the  cure  for  partial  development  would  not  be 
atonement  and  regeneration,  but  evolution;  and  that  to 
infinity  if  that  could  ever  be.  This  theory  is  what  Dr. 
Strong  calls  the  "green  apple  theory"  and  very  appropri- 
ately remarks  that  "sin  is  not  a  green  apple  that  needs 
only  time  and  sunshine  and  growth  to  bring  it  to  ripeness 
and  beauty  and  usefulness;  but  sin  is  an  apple  with  a 
worm  at  its  heart.  The  evil  of  it  can  never  be  cured  b^^ 
growth." 

Third;  If  man  does  not  become  infinite  and  therefore 
cease  to  be  sinful  then  sin  must  be  eternal. 

Fourth;  If  infinity  is  goodness  there  is  slight  hope  for 
any  man. 

Fifth;  Limitation  is  a  connatural  condition  of  man's 
existence.  Therefore  sin  is  chargeable  to  the  Creator,  if 
there  be  any  Creator  in  this  view. 

Sixth;  Jesus  Christ  because  finite  in  his  human  nature 
must  have  been  a  sinner. 

Seventh;  Sin  is  not  negative;  it  is  a  positive  virile 
force. 


Eighth;  If  sin  be  limitation  it  is  therefore  a  necessity 
to  all  finite  existence  and  leaves  no  place  for  liberty  or 
responsibility.  Thus  the  theory  overlooks  entirely  the 
moral  aspects  of  evil,  and  fails  to  distinguish  between 
infinite  good  and  infinite  extension. 

Ninth;  If  this  theory  were  true  then  might  makes 
right;  the  great  and  strong  are  good,  and  the  weak  and 
poor  are  always  bad.  It  would  make  Satan  himself  a 
comparatively  good  being  because  a  great  and  powerful 
spirit. 

3.  Defect. 

Another  theory  is  that  which  makes  sin  defect. 

Defect  is  the  absence  of  anj^thing  that  belongs  to  the 
nature  of  a  thing.  That  a  stone  cannot  see  is  not  a  defect 
of  the  stone  because  sight  does  not  belong  to  the  nature 
of  a  stone.  That  a  man  cannot  see  is  a  defect  of  the  man 
because  sight  belongs  to  the  nature  of  a  man. 

But  the  moral  judgment  of  the  world  declares  that 
this  is  not  sin.  There  is  no  ground  of  responsibility' in  a 
man's  not  having  eyes,  or  anns,  or  limbs.  There  is  no 
ground  of  punishment  or  blameworthiness  in  it.  It  may 
be  a  misfortune  to  be  pitied  but  not  a  sin  to  be  con- 
demned.    This  is  true  of  physical  defect. 

But  there  is  a  sense  in  which  it  is  proper  to  say  that 
sin  is  defect.  It  is  moral  defect.  But  even  to  say  that  sin 
is  moral  defect  is  only  a  partial  definition  of  sin;  because 
it  embraces  only  the  subjective  fact  of  man's  moral  na- 
ture, and  not  the  objective  fact  of  God's  law  as  the  stan- 
dard of  measurement  for  that  nature. 

4.  Selfishness. . 

Another  theory  defines  sin  as  selfishness.  This  theory 
has  had  very  wide  acceptance  in  recent  decades. 

The  objections  to  it  as  an  adequate  definition  of  sin 
are  conclusive. 

(a)  Selfishness  must  come  under  the  category  of  sin; 
not  sin  under  the  category  of  selfishness.  The  larger  term 
embraces  the  smaller;  or  the  general  term  embraces  the 
particular.  Sin  is  the  larger  term  of  which  selfishness  is 
only  a  species. 

(b)  To  say  that  sin  is  selfishness  is  not  ultimate.  We 
are  bound  to  ask  the  question,  wh^^  IS  selfishness  sin? 
Why  is  selfishness  wrong?  Why  does  it  bring  conviction 
of  guilt?  Why  is  selfishness  blameworthy?  What  makes 
selfishness  sin? 

— loo — 


This  compels  us  to  give  a  reason  WHY  selfishness  is 
sin,  and  that  reason  forces  us  back  to  a  higher  law. 

The  theorj'  looks  too  exclusively  on  the  manward  side 
of  human  relations  and  responsibility-,  and  leaves  out  of 
account  one  factor  that  explains  and  gives  force  to  every 
ethical  principle,  viz.  relationship  to  God. 

(c)  To  say  that  there  is  an  element  of  selfishness  in 
all  sin  is  not  sufficient.  The  statement  itself  is  doubtful. 
A  man  might  sin  for  some  other  person's  pleasure  or 
benefit,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  that  could  be  called  selfish- 
ness. 

Even  if  an  element  of  selfishness  is  found  in  all  sin  it 
would  not  prove  that  the  essence  of  sin  is  selfishness,  any 
more  than  showing  that  speech  belonged  to  all  men  would 
prove  that  the  essence  of  humanity  is  speech. 

(d)  Some  would  use  the  word  self-li-ness  instead  of 
selfishness.  The  theory  would  then  be  stated  thus:  God 
is  the  proper  center  of  the  soul  and  sin  consists  in  putting 
ourselves  in  the  place  of  God;  in  preferring  our  own  will 

.to  the  will  of  God;  and  so  sin  is  selfiiness. 

This  is  a  less  objectionable  form  of  the  theory,  but 
still  unsatisfactory  as  a  definition  of  sin. 

This  form  of  the  theory  admits  that  the  will  of  God 
is  paramount;  and  therefore  that  sin  must  be  defined  in 
reference  to  the  will  or  law  of  God.  The  evil  is  not  that 
man  walks  according  to  his  own  will  or  wish,  but  the  evil 
is  that  his  will  is  not  in  harniony  with  God's  will. 

The  evil  is  not  that  man  walks  in  his  own  ways  and 
delights  in  his  own  thoughts.  Every  sane  man  must  act 
in  accordance  with  his  own  mind  and  heart;  but  the  evil 
is  that  his  mind  and  heart  are  not  in  conformity  to  God. 

Even  this  form  of  the  theory  leaves  unanswered  the 
question,  why  selfliness  is  sin. 

5.     The  Evolutionary  Doctrine  of  Sin. 

The  Evolutionist  regards  sin  as  the  remains  of  the 
animal  nature  out  of  which  man  sprang.  It  is  derived 
from  his  animal  ancestry'.  It  is  not  so  much  a  fall  from 
a  higher  level  as  a  failure  as  yet  to  rise  by  the  law  of 
evolution  to  a  higher  level. 

John  Fiske,  "Destinj^  of  Man,"  103,  says:  "Original 
sin  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  brute  inheritance 
which  every  man  carries  with  him,  and  the  process  of 
evolution  is  an  advance  toward  true  salvation." 

Objections. 

(a)  This  view  is  based  on  the  evolutionary  theory, 
which  itself  is  not  proved. 

— lOI — 


(b)  It  makes  sin  a  necessity;  being-  the  product  of 
deterministic  laws. 

(c)  This  lays  the  responsibility  for  sin  on  the  Creator 
and  not  at  the  door  of  the  man's  free  will.  Sin  must  be 
referred  ultimately  to  freedom  or  it  is  not  sin. 

If  man  were  an  animal  he  could  not  sin,  and  if  he  can 
sin  he  is  not  an  animal. 

(d)  It  makes  sin  to  arise  out  of  the  sensuous  nature, 
whereas  many  sins  such  as  anger,  pride  etc.  are  not  sen- 
suous sins. 

(e)  If  sin  is  the  survival  of  brute  inheritance  we  have 
no  ground  for  sin  in  Satan  and  fallen  angels. 

(f)  It  involves  the  absurdity  that  a  part  is  greater 
than  the  whole.  According  to  this  theory  an  entire  animal 
nature  is  not  sinful,  but  the  mere  remains  of  that  animal 
nature  is  sin  in  its  deepest  g^uilt. 

6.     The  True  Definition  of  Sin. 

Shorter  Catechism,  14.  What  is  sin?  Sin  is  any  want 
of  conformity  unto,  or  transgression  of  the  law  of  God. 

This  is  a  Scriptural  definition.  It  includes  the  exact 
elements  and  terms  set  forth  in  the  holy  Scriptures. 

T.  Jno.  3:4..     Sin  is  the   transgression  of  the  law. 
I.  Jno.  5:17.     All   unrighteousness   is  sin. 

Here  are  both  the  transgression  and  the  want  of  con- 
formity plainly  declared  to  be  sin. 

This  is  an  inspired  account  of  the  nature  of  sin,  and 
is  ultimate,  inclusive,  and  conclusive.  It  recognizes  both 
the  human  deficiency  and  the  objective  standard  of  moral 
measurement. 

The  true  nature  of  sin  is  contrariety  to  God,  which 
includes  all  phases  of  evil  and  is  not  reducible  to  lower 
terms. 

This  is  what  makes  sin  to  be  sin; — not  limitation,  nor 
selfishness,  nor  sensuousness,  but  discord  with  God.  If 
there  were  no  law  of  God  there  would  be  no  sin,  neither 
would  there  be  any  moral  good. 

Section  III.    Nature  of  Sin. 

1.  Not  a  corruption  of  the  substance  of  the  soul.  Not 
the  mixture  of  some  other  substance  with  the  soul.  After 
the  fall  the  soul  of  man  was  still  a  spiritual  substance,  or  a 
spiritual  substance  inhabiting  a  body. 

2.  But  a  corruption  of  the  faculties  and  especially 
of  the  moral  character  of  the  soul. 

— 102 — 


3.  Has  relation  to  law,  i.e.  the  law  of  God;  departure 
from  God  and  his  law. 

4.  Sin  includes  pollution  and  guilt. 
Guilt  embraces  two  ideas: 

(a)  Blameworthiness. 

(b)  Liability  to  punishment. 

Christ  in  assuming-  our  guilt  took  our  liabilitj'^;  not 
our  blameworthiness. 

Section  IV.     Original  Sin. 

1.     Statement. 

(a)  Shorter  Catechism,  i8.  Wherein  consists  the  sin- 
fulness of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell?  The  sinfulness 
of  that  estate  whereinto  inan  fell  consists  in  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  the 
corruption  of  his  whole  nature  , which  is  commonly  called 
original  sin,  etc. 

The  word  "which"  may  grammatically  refer  to  all 
three  particulars,  or  only  to  the  last;  but  it  is  usual  to 
include  all  three  in  our  conception  of  original  sin.  This 
term  is  generally  used  to  designate  the  hereditary  moral 
corruption  common  to  all  men  at  birth. 

(b)  Henry  B.  Smith — "Original  sin  means  in  theology 
just  one  thing:  not  the  first  of  Adam;  not  the  first  sin  of 
each  man;  but  the  general  condition  of  all  the  members  of 
the  race  by  birth,  before  actual  transgression,  into  which 
they  are  brought  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of  Adam,  the 
head  of  the  race. 

(c)  The  Formula  of  Concord,  the  best  expression  of 
Lutheranism,  says: — "Christians  ought  not  only  to  ac- 
knowledge and  define  actual  faults  and  transgressions  of 
the  commands  of  God  to  be  sins,  but  they  ought  also  to 
regard  that  hereditary  disease  by  which  the  whole  nature 
of  man  is  corrupted,  as  a  specially  dreadful  sin,  and  in- 
deed as  the  first  principle  and  source  of  all  other  sins 
from  which  all  other  transgressions  spring  as  from  their 
root." 

(d)  Calvin. 

Original  Sin  is  "an  hereditary  depravity  and  corrup- 
tion of  our  nature,  diffused  through  all  the  parts  of  the 
soul,  rendering  us  obnoxious  (i.e.  liable  or  subject)  to  the 
Divine  wrath."  "This  thing,  therefore,  should  be  strictly 
observed:  namely,  that  our  nature  being  so  totally  vitiated 
and  depraved,  we  are,  on  account  of  this  very  corruption, 
considered  as  convicted,  and  justly  condemned  in  the  sight 

— 103— 


of  God,  to  whom  nothing"  is  acceptable  but  righteousness, 
innocence  and  purity. 

"And  this  Habiht}'  to  punishment  arises  not  from  the 
delinquency  of  another;  for  when  it  is  said  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  renders  us  obnoxious  to  the  divine  judg-ment,  it  is 
not  to  be  understood  as  if  we,  being"  innocent,  were  unde- 
servedly loaded  with  the  guilt  of  sin;  but,  because  we  are 
all  subject  to  a  curse  in  consequence  of  his  transgression, 
he  is  therefore  said  to  have  involved  us  in  guilt. 

"Nevertheless  we  derive  from  him,  not  the  punishment 
only,  but  also  the  pollution  to  which  the  punishment .  is 
justly  due."  "And  the  Apostle  himself  expressly  declares, 
that  death  has  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  have 
sinned, — that  is,  have  been  involved  in  original  sin.  And 
therefore  infants  themselves,  as  they  bring  their  condem- 
nation into  the  world  with  them,  are  rendered  obnoxious 
to  punishment  b3"  their  own  sinfulness,  not  by  the  sinful- 
ness of  another.  For  though  thej'  have  not  yet  produced 
the  fruits  of  their  iniquity,  yet  they  have  the  seed  of  it 
within  them — whence  it  follows  that  this  native  depravity 
is  properly  accounted  sin  in  the  sight  of  God,  because 
there  could  be  no  guilt  without  crime." — Institutes,  II.  i. 

(e)   The  Formula  Consensus  Helvetici. 

This  was  written  by  Turretine  and  Heidegger,  Swiss 
theologians  and  is  one  of  the  best  statements  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Original  Sin. 

"As  God  entered  into  a  covenant  of  works  with  Adam, 
not  only  for  himself  but  also  with  the  whole  human  race 
in  him  as  the  head  and  root,  so  that  the  posterity  who 
were  to  be  born  of  him  would  inherit  the  same  integrity 
with  which  he  was  created,  provide  he  should  continue  in 
it;  so  Adam  by  his  sad  fall  sinned  not  for  himself  only,  but 
for  the  whole  human  race  who  were  to  be  born,  and  lost 
the  blessings  promised  in  the  covenant.  We  are  of  the 
opinion  therefore  that  the  sin  of  x\dam  is  imputed  to  all 
his  posterity  by  the  secret  and  just  judgment  of  God.  For 
the  Apostle  testifies  that  'In  Adam  all  have  sinned.  By 
the  disobedience  of  one  manj'  were  made  sinners;'  and  'In 
Adam  all  die.' 

"But  it  does  not  appear  how  hereditary"  corruption,  as 
spiritual  death,  could  fall  upon  the  entire  human  race  by 
the  just  judgment  of  God,  unless  some  fault  of  this  same 
human  r^^ce,  bringing  in  the  penalty  of  that  death,  had 
preceded.  For  the  most  just  God,  the  judge  of  all  the 
earth,  punishes  none  but  the  guilt}'. 

"Wherefore  man,  previous  to  the  commission  of  any 
single   or   actual   transgression,    is   exposed   to  the   divine 

— 104 — 


wrath  and  curse  from  his  very  birth,  and  this  in  a  twofold 
manner;  first,  on  account  of  the  transgression  and  disobe- 
dience which  he  committed  in  the  loins  of  Adam;  and  sec- 
ondly, on  account  of  the  hereditary  corruption  inherent  in 
his  conception,  which  is  the  consequence  of  this  primitive 
transgression,  and  by  which  his  whole  nature  is  depraved 
and  spiritually  dead. 

"Thus  it  appears  that  original  sin,  by  a  strict  discrim- 
ination, is  twofold,  and  consists  of  the  imputed  guilt  of 
Adam's  transgression  and  the  inherent  hereditary  corrup- 
tion consequent  upon  this." 

(f)  The  Arminian  view  of  Original  Sin  will  be  treated 
in  Section  IX. 

2.     Proof  of  Original  Sin. 

(a)  From  the  Scriptures. 

Ps.  51:5.  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity  and  in  sin  did  my 
mother  conceive  me. 

Gen.  8:21.  The  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his 
youth. 

Matt.   7:16-19.     Grapes  of  thorns  or  figs  of  thistles? 

Job   14:4.     Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an   unclean? 

Job  15:14.  What  is  man  that  he  should  be  clean  and  he  that  is 
born  of  a  woman  that  he  should  be  righteous? 

Jno.   3:6.     That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh. 

Ephes.  2:3.  We  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as 
others. 

Ps.  58:3.  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb:  they  go 
astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born,  speaking  lies. 

(b)  Proof  of  original  sin  is  found  in  the  universality 
of  sin  among  men.  If  Adam's  sin  were  nothing  but  a  bad 
example,  as  the  Pelagians  hold,  there  would  naturally  be 
many  who  would  escape  that  example.  A  sense  of  sin  and 
guilt  has  always  attended  the  human  race.  There  is  a 
consciousness  of  sin  as  innate  and  this  consciousness  as 
well  as  the  practice  of  sin  is  universal.  It  is  explainable 
on  the  ground  of  inborn  depravity. 

(c)  There  is  proof  of  original  sin  in  its  early  mani- 
festation. Before  observation,  training,  or  example  be- 
come effective  the  child  manifests  an  evil  nature. 

Ps,  58:3.     See  above 

(d)  Our  ultimate  experience. 

The  interpretation  of  our  experience  and  conscious- 
ness in  regard  to  sin  leads  us  to  conclude  that  the  begin- 
nings of  sin  in  us  cannot  be  limited,  or  ultimately  traced, 
to  a  definite  volition;  but  go  back  to  an  internal  bias  in 
our  natures  that  prompts  the  volition. 

There  is  in  us  what  is  termed  an  "immanent  prefer- 

—105— 


ence"   for  evil.     This   preference   or  bias   constitutes   our 
character  out  of  which  our  choices  spring. 

3.     The  Nature  and  Effect  of  Original  Sin. 

Two  questions  arise  here:  Is  original  sin  truly  of  the 
nature  of  sin?  And,  does  it  condemn  to  eternal  death? 
Is  the  race  as  a  race  lost  and  condemned  by  virtue  of  the 
original  transgression? 

Are  men  under  sentence  of  eternal  death  because  of 
original  sin,  or  only  for  actual  transgressions? 

The  answer  is,  that  original  sin  is  trulj'  of  the  nature 
of  sin  and  condemns  to  eternal  death. 

Observe: — 

(a)  The  Reformed  Confessions  recognize  this  to  be 
true. 

The  Form  of  Concord  describes  original  sin  as  "a 
specially  dreadful  sin." 

The  Concensus  Helevtici  says:  "Wherefore  man  pre- 
vious to  the  commission  of  any  single  or  actual  transgres- 
sion is  exposed  to  the  divine  wrath  and  curse  from  his 
very  birth." 

Calvin  says:  "We  are  on  account  of  this  very  corrup- 
tion, considered  as  convicted  and  justly  condemned  in  the 
sight  of  God,  to  whom  nothing  is  acceptable  but  righteous- 
ness, innocence,  and  purity." 

Shorter  Catechism  19.  What  is  the  miserj^  of  that 
estate  into  which  man  fell?  All  mankind  by  their  fall  lost 
communion  with  God,  are  under  his  wrath  and  curse  and 
so  made  liable  to  all  the  miseries  of  this  life,  to  death  it- 
self, and  to  the  pains  of  hell  forever. 

(b)  It  constitutes  our  character  as  evil.  An  evil  char- 
acter is,  per  se,  spiritual  death.  If  original  sin  is  sin,  then 
inevitably  it  involves  spiritual  death. 

(c)  It  is  the  root  out  of  which  actual  sin  springs.  The 
root  cannot  be  better  than  the  fruit  which  it  bears.  Sin- 
fulness attaches  to  character  which  lies  beneath  and 
before  all  actual  transgression.  "Out  of  the  heart  proceed 
evil  thoug'hts,  murder,  adulteries,  fornications,  thefts,  false 
witness." 

(d)  It  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  sin  and  con- 
demnable. 

Rom.  6:6.  O'ur  old  man  is  crucified  that  the  body  of  sin  might 
be  destroyed. 

This  recognizes  the  sinfulness  of  the  old  unreg'enerale 
nature. 

Rom.  7:5.  When  we  were  in  the  flesh,  sinful  passions  wrought 
in   our  members. 

— 106 — 


Gal.  5:24.  They  that  are  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh  with 
its   affections  and   lusts. 

All  this  shows  that  the  inherent  underlying-  nature  is 
evil. 

Jas.  3:11-12.  The  fountain  and  tree  produce  according  to  their 
nature. 

I.  Cor.   15:22.     In  Adam  all  die. 

Rom.  5:14.  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses  even  over  them 
that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  first  transgres- 
sion. 

Rom.  5:16.     The  judgment  was  by  one  to  CONDEMNATION. 

Rom.  5:18.  By  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men 
to  CONDEMNATION. 

Rom.  5:12.     Death  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  sinned. 

The  best  exegesis  of  this  verse  refers  the  "sinned"  (a 
definite  past  action)  to  the  sin  in  Adam  arid  makes  all 
men  joint  agents  with  Adam;  and  thus  asserts  that  death 
temporal  and  eternal  was  the  penalty  of  that  sin  for  ali 
men. 

(e)  The  penalty  of  spiritual  death  falls  on  all,  and 
this  is  evident  because  physical  death  falls  upon  infants 
who  have  not  actually  transgressed.  If  one  part  of  the 
penalty  of  original  sin  takes  effect  on  all,  it  is  logical  to 
conclude  that  the  other  part  does  also. 

Section  V.     Total  Depravity. 

1.  Total  depravity  does  not  mean  that  men  are  as 
bad  as  they  can  be,  but  that  the  whole  man  is  depraved  by 
sin. 

2.  This  depravity  affects  all  man's  faculties.  This  is 
evident  because  it  is  the  whole  soul  that  thinks,  and  the 
whole  soul  that  feels  or  wills.  And  a  sinful  soul  must 
necessarily  affect  all  activities  of  that  soul  in  the  exercise 
of  its  faculties,  and  affect  them  according-  to  its  inherent 
nature. 

3.  Even  the  body  is  affected  by  the  depravity  of  the 
soul.  The  soul  commands  and  uses  the  body.  Not  being 
restrained  by  holy  dispositions,  but  driven  by  unholy  pro- 
clivities, the  appetites  and  passions  of  the  body  grow  to 
inordinate  proportions  affecting  the  whole  life  physical, 
as  well  as  moral. 

4.  The  depravity  of  human  nature,  and  not  the  loss 
of  any  faculty,  is  the  cause  of  inability. 

— 107 — 


Section  VI.     The  Pelag-ian  View  of  Sin. 

1.  Sin  consists  in  voluntary  acts,  or  deliberate  choice 
of  evil. 

2.  Only  that  corruption  of  nature  which  is  the  result 
of  choice  is  sin. 

3.  Adam's  sin  injured  only  himself.  There  is  no  ori- 
ginal sin.  No  imputation  but  onl^^  imitation  of  Adam's 
sin. 

He  set  a  bad  example;  that  is  all.  No  corruption  of 
nature  from  Adam,  but  all  born  as  pure  as  Adam  at  cre- 
ation. 

4.  Man  can  do  all  that  is  required  of  him.  If  I  ought 
I  can.  Ability'  limits  obligation.  No  obligation  where 
there  is  no  ability. 

5.  Men  may  live  without  sin,  and  often  do. 

6.  Salvation  is  man's  own  act  choosing  the  right; 
man  saves  himself. 

7.  Fails  to  recognize  that  evil  character  is  the  cause 
of  evil  acts. 

Section  VII.    Semi-Pelagian  View  of  Sin. 
This  modified  the  Pelagian  view. 

1.  Man  is  not  dead  in  sin  but  sick.  Weakened  by  the 
fall. 

2.  Man  needs  the  help  of  divine  grace  in  salvation, 
to  complete  and  perfect  the  work. 

3.  Man  begins  the  work  of  reformation  and  God 
assists  his  efforts. 

Section  VIII.    The  Roman  Catholic  View  of  Sin. 

1.  Man  created  body  and  soul,  but  these  antagonistic 
to  each  other. 

2.  Original  righteousness  was  an  added  gift  to  har- 
monize the  antagonistic  elements  of  matter  and  spirit  in 
man's  constitution. 

3.  In  the  fall  man  lost  his  original  righteousness  and 
so  was  left  in  the  state  of  disharmony'  in  which  he  was 
created. 


4.  Original  sin  is  the  loss  of  original  righteousness 
and  the  consequent  disharmony. 

5.  All  are  therefore  born  in  sin,  but  baptism  removes 
this  original  sin  and  leaves  nothing  in  the  soul  that  is 
properly  of  the  nature  of  sin.  However  all  may  sin  again 
because  of  remaining  concupiscence  (fomes,  fuel)  but  this 
concupiscence  is  not  of  the  nature  of  sin. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  thus  converts  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin  into  the  doctrine  of  original  evil,  not 
sin  itself  but  fomes,  the  fuel  of  sin.  Considering  it  as 
sensuous  or  physical  merely,  they  once  raised  the  ques- 
tions: "What  is  the  particular  quality  of  the  body  in 
which  this  fomes  consists;  was  it  contracted  from  eating 
the  apple,  or  from  the  breath  of  the  serpent,  and  can  it  be 
cured  by  medicines?" 

6.  These  teachings  do  not  apply  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 

Section  IX.    The  Arminian  Doctrine  of  Sin. 

1.  The  Arminian  peculiarity  concerns  chiefly  the 
feature  of  original  sin.  In  other  features  of  the  doctrine 
of  sin  they  conform  generally  to  the  position  of  the  other 
reformed  churches. 

The  Arminian,  or  Remonstrant,  view  is  set  forth  by 
Episcopius  in  his  Confession  or  Declaration,  (Confessio 
sive  Declaratio  Remonstrantium). 

It  is  further  explained  in  his  Apology  (Apologia  pro 
Confessione). 

The  two  works  do  not  seem  to  harmonize  completely. 

The  Confession  reads:  "Adam  transgressed  the  law  of 
God.  By  that  transgression  man  was  made  liable  to  eter- 
nal death  and  manifold  miseries But  since  Adam 

was  the  stem  and  root  of  the  whole  race, — he  involved  all 
his  posterity  in  the  same  death  and  misery,  and  impli- 
cated them  with  himself,  so  that  all  men  indiscriminately, 
Jesus  Christ  excepted,  through  this  one  single  sin  of 
Adam,  have  been  deprived  of  that  primitive  felicity,  and 
have  lost  that  true  righteousness  which  is  necessary  in 
order  to  eternal  life,  and  thus  are  born  even  now  exposed 
to  that  death  which  we  have  mentioned,  and  to  manifold 
miseries. 

"And  this  is  commonly  denominated  original  sin.  In 
respect  to  which  nevertheless  the  doctrine  must  be  held 
that  the  most  benevolent  God  has  provided  for  all  a  rem- 
edy, for  that  general  evil  which  was  derived  to  us  from 
Adam  free  and  gratuitous  in  his  beloved  Son  Jesus  Christ. 

— 109 — 


So  that  the  hurtful  error  of  those  is  plainly  apparent  who 
are  accustomed  to  found  on  that  sin  the  decree  of  absolute 
reprobation,  invented  bj^  themselves." 

If  this  languag^e  is  to  be  taken  at  its  face  value  it 
teaches  that  original  sin  passed  to  all  men  by  natural 
propagation  and  that  it  involved  all  men  in  the  penalty  of 
eternal  death. 

And  if  we  further  apprehend  this  reference  to  redemp- 
tion, it  teaches  that  the  atonement  canceled,  in  lump  sum, 
or  by  job  lot,  as  it  were,  the  whole  racial  guilt  of  original 
sin,  leaving  man  liable  only  to  the  penaltj^  of  actual  trans- 
gression. 

However  in  the  'Apology,'  which  is  Episcopius'  de- 
fense and  explanation  of  the  'Confession,'  it  is  shown  that 
original  sin  is  not  regarded  as  truly  and  properly  sin. 

The  Apology  reads:  "The  Remonstrants  do  not  regard 
original  sin  as  sin  properly  so  called,  which  renders  the 
posterity  of  Adam  deserving  of  the  hatred  of  God;  but  as 
an  evil,  infirmit3^  injury,  or  by  whatever  other  name  it 
may  be  called,  which  is  propagated  to  his  posterity  by 
Adam  devoid  of  original  righteouness.  Whence  it  results 
that  all  the  posterity  of  Adam,  destitute  of  the  same 
righteousness  are  whollj^  unfit  for  and  incapable  of  attain- 
ing eternal  life, — except  God  bj^  his  new  grace  go  before 
them  and  restore  as  well  as  supply  new  strength  by  which 
they  may  attain  it. 

But  that  original  sin  is  not  evil  in  any  other  sense 
than  this — that  it  is  not  evil  in  the  sense  of  implying  guilt 
and  desert  of  punishment — is  plain.  It  is  not  evil  in  the 
sense  of  implying  guilt,  because  to  be  born  is  confessedly 
an  involuntary  thing,  and  therefore  it  is  an  involuntary 
thing  to  be  born  with  this  or  that  stain,  infirmity,  injury 
or  evil. 

But  if  it  is  not  an  evil  in  the  sense  of  impl^'ing'  guilt, 
then  it  cannot  be  an  evil  in  the  sense  of  desert  of  punisii- 
ment,  because  guilt  and  punishment  are  correlated.  So 
far  therefore  as  original  sin  is  an  evil,  it  must  be  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  Remonstrants  define  the  term;  and  is 
called  original  sin  by  a  misuse  of  the  word  sin." 

2.  Summarj^  of  special  ])oints  in  the  old  Arminian- 
ism. 

(a)  Original  sin  is  not  properly  sin  and  does  not 
condemn  to  eternal  death. 

(b)  Adam's  guilt  was  individual  and  not  imputable  to 
posterity. 

(c)  Man  by  the  fall  fell  heir  to  a  misfortune,  or  evil  of 
nature,  which  is  not  guilt. 


(d)  This  evil  attaches  to  the  physical  and  intellectual, 
but  not  to  the  voluntary  nature  of  man. 

It  becomes  the  occasion  of  actual  transgression;  but  is 
not  penal  or  condemnable. 

The  modern  doctrine  is  represented  by  Wesleyan  Ar- 
minianism. 

3.  The  Weslej'-an  Arminian  View  of  Sin. 

The  Wesleyan  view  modifies  slightly  the  old  Arminian 
view. 

The  Wesleyan  doctrines  were  expounded  by  Watson 
in  Britain  and  by  Whedon  and  others  in  America. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  the  modern  repre- 
sentative of  Arminianism. 

Wesleyan  Arminianism  embraces  these  points: 

(a)  Posterity  inherited  from  Adam  a  corrupt  and  sin- 
ful nature. 

(b)  Man  is  now  born  with  a  corrupt  nature,  and  there- 
fore unregenerate. 

(c)  But  men  are  not  born  with  g'uilt  in  the  sense  of 
liability  to  penalty. 

(d)  The  penalty  of  original  sin  is  removed,  job  lot, 
from  the  race  by  the  sacrifice  and  atonement  of  Christ,  so 
that  men,  though  born  with  a  corrupt  nature,  are  not  con- 
demnable for  original  sin. 

(e)  Holy  ability  was  lost  to  man  in  the  fall,  so  that 
he  cannot  rehabilitate  himself;  but  ability  to  co-operate 
with  grace  is  furnished  him  by  virtue  of  Christ's  redemp- 
tion. 

(f)  Grace  sufficient  to  attain  eternal  life  is  given  to 
all  men  and  becomes  efficient  if  the^'  but  co-operate  with 
the  grace  given.  This  grace  becomes  effective  by  human 
co-operation  and  thus  the  success  of  the  divine  influence 
depends  upon  the  use  which  man  makes  of  it;  or  in  other 
words  grace  is  made  effective  by  man. 

(g)  Ability  to  co-operate  is  from  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(h)  By  some,  e.g.  Whedon,  this  ability  was  an  obliga- 
tion or  debt  on  the  part  of  God.  However  Paul  asserts 
that  salvation  is  of  grace. 

(i)  All  who  co-operate  and  persevere  to  the  end  are 
elected  to  be  saved,  making  election  conditional  upon 
human  effort. 

4.  Remarks  on  Arminianism  in  General. 
Arminianism    embraces    much    evangelical   truth,    but 

some  errors,  as  the  following  particulars  will  show, 
(a)   As  to  the  nature  of  Original  Sin. 
The    Scriptures    teach    that   man's    moral    inheritance 

— Ill — 


from  Adam  is  of  the  nature  of  sin,  and  that  all  men  are 
under  penalty  of  eternal  death.  We  are  by  nature  the 
children  of  wrath. 

.Man  is  condemnable  for  what  he  is  as  well  as  for  what 
he   does. 

The  depravity  of  nature  is  as  truly  heinous  in  the 
sight  of  God  as  the  actual  transgression  that  springs 
from  it. 

Arminianism  does  not  fully  recognize  the  evil  inherent 
in  human  nature. 

(b)  As  to  universal  remission  of  original  sin. 
Appeal  is  made  to  Rom.  5:18.    The  free  gift  came  upon 

all  unto  justification  of  life. 

This  is  a  mistranslation.  Not  "upon  all"  as  the  A.  V. 
has  it,  but  "unto  all"'  as  the  R.  V. 

A  misinterpretation  also,  as  it  would  express  universal 
salvt'ition  if  given  the  sense  which  the  Arminians  have 
claimed. 

The  application  of  Christ's  redemption  through  justifi- 
cation and  regeneration  is  personal  and  not  racial. 

There  is  a  common  grace,  but  this  of  itself  does  not 
remove  the  corruption  of  the  human  nature  nor  regener- 
ate the  soul. 

(c)  That  God  is  under  obligation  to  afford  his  grace 
to  men,  and  that  it  is  a  matter  of  debt  or  justice  and  not 
an  unmerited  gratuit3%  we  can  not  admit.  "By  grace  are 
ye  saved  through  faith." 

(d)  The  Arminian  doctrine  of  grace  does  not  save 
men,  but  enables  man  to  save  himself.  It  makes  divine 
grace  and  purpose  dependent  on  the  human  will.  It  con- 
ditions the  divine  on  the  human,  thus  making  the  divine 
in  some  sense  secondary. — "Through  faith,  and  that  not  of 
yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God." 

Arminianism  offers  man  a  chance  of  salvation  instead 
of  salvation.  Adolph  Saphir  says:  "My  objection  to  the 
Arminian  or  semi-Arminian,  is  not  that  they  make  the 
entrance  very  wide;  but  that  they  do  not  give  you  any- 
thing definite,  safe,  and  real  when  you  have  entered.  Do 
not  believe  the  Devil's  gospel,  which  is  a  CHANCE  of 
salvation:     chance  of  salvation  is  chance  of  "damnation." 

(e)  If  all  are  born  with  a  corrupt  nature,  something 
more  is  necessary  than  grace-to-co-operate  for  those  inca- 
pable of  co-operation,  as  infants,  imbeciles,  and  other  in- 
capables. 

Only  sovereign  election  and  sovereign  grace  will  ap- 
ply in  such  case. 

— 112 — ■ 


(f)  The  Arminian  doctrine  of  salvation  divides  the 
efficiency  between  the  divine  and  human  wills. 

The  Calvinistic  doctrine  assigns  the  efficiency  to 
God's  will,  and  makes  human  co-operation  the  effect  of 
divine  grace. 

The  former  is  called  synergism,  the  latter,  monergism. 

"The  dependence  upon  grace  in  the  Arminian  systein 
is  partial;  in  the  Calvinistic  system  is  total." — Shedd. 

Section  X.     View  of  Pantheistic  Theologians. 

The  view  of  Pantheism  has  been  fairly  presented  in 
the  section  which  treated  of  sin  as  Limitation  of  Being,  or 
Finiteness.  That  treatment  considered  sin  chiefly  from  the 
philosophical  view-point.  There  is  another  shade  of  mean- 
ing that  arises  from  the  religious  point  of  view. 

The  philosophy  of  Spinoza  and  the  psychology  of 
Kant  contributed  a  powerful  influence  to  theological  spec- 
ulation. 

Fichte,  Schelling,  Hegel,  Schleiermacher,  and  the  NeAV 
England  transcendentalists  were  among  those  thus  af- 
fected. 

These  were  not  all  out-and-out  Pantheists,  but  all 
\vere  strongly  colored  by  Pantheism.  Their  system  of 
thought  or  doctrine,  if  we  may  call  it  such,  was  semi- 
Pantheistic,  emi-idealistic,  semi-philosophic  and  semi-reli- 
gious. Schleiermacher  especially  has  left  an  influence  on 
modern  theology,  greater  than  was  deserving,  and  regard- 
ed himself  and  is  regarded  as  a  Christian  theologian.  He 
was  indeed  sincerely  devoted  to  Jesus  Christ  though  he 
repudiated  the  Old  Testament,  the  miracles  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  even  left  the  personality^  of  God  as  an 
open  question. 

The  following  particulars  represent  the  Pantheistic 
tjieology  in  its  characteristic  form,  and  show  how  sin  is 
defined  under  this  conception. 

1.  There  is  an  eternal  and  absolute  being  (called 
God),  impersonal  but  omnipotent,  out  of  which  all  things 
have  developed. 

2.  This  being  comes  into  form  in  the  visible  universe 
and  reaches  its  highest  development  in  the  consciousness 
of  man. 

3.  Man  has  a  world-consciousness,  or  a  consciousness 
affected  by  the  world. 

4.  Man  has  also,  or  should  have,  a  God-consciousness, 
i.e.  a  consciousness  that  God,  the  absolute  and  eternal  be- 
ing, is  within  him. 

—113— 


5.  This  is  religion.  Religion  consists  in  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  fact  that  God,  the  primal  being,  is  the  only 
cause;  and  that  we  are  only  the  form  in  which  his  (its) 
causality  is  revealed  or  exercised. 

6.  The  ideal  state  of  man  consists  in  control  by  the 
God-consciousness,  and  its  absolute  predominance  over  the 
world-consciousness. 

7.  Sin  therefore  is  the  lack  of  that  control  or  predom- 
inance of  the  God-consciousness, 


Chapter  X.    Inability. 

Section  I.    Various  Views. 

1.  The  Pelagian  View:  Man  has  no  inabilit^^;  but  has 
full  ability  to  do  all  that  God  requires.  There  is  no  need 
of  regeneration,  or  any  divine  grace  in  sanctification  or 
spiritual  growth. 

2.  The  Semi-Pelagian  View:  Man  was  weakened  by 
the  fall;  but  not  all  ability  was  lost.  He  needs  divine 
grace  to  assist  his  personal  efforts. 

3.  The  Augustinian  or  Calvinistic  View..  Man  is  to- 
tally disabled  by  the  fall,  and  so  wholly  dependent  on  the 
Spirit  of  God  for  the  inception  and  development  of  spirit- 
ual life. 

The  first  view  says  man  is  well;  the  second  that  he  is 
sick;  and  the  third  that  he  is  dead. 

Section  II.     What  Inability  is  not. 

1.  It  is  not  the  loss  of  any  faculty  of  the  soul: — intel- 
lect, feeling,  will  or  conscience. 

2.  It  is  not  the  loss  of  free  agency. 

3.  It  does  not  mean  that  fallen  man  possesses  no 
virtues.  Fallen  and  unregenerate  men  often  display  inany 
qualities  that  are  admirable. 

4.  It  does  not  mean  lack  of  capacity  to  know  God 
and  receive  grace. 

Section  III.     The  doctrine  of  Inability  means: — 

1.  That  fallen  man  is  unable  to  keep  God's  law  and 
merit  life  by  his  works. 

—114— 


2.  That  man  is  unable  to  reinstate  himself  in  God's 
favor. 

3.  That  he  is  unable  to  change  his  nature,  regenerate 
himself,  and  become  holy. 

4.  That  he  is  unable  to  exercise  right  affection  or  in- 
clination toward  God. 

5.  That  this  inability  is  self-acquired  bj^  the  race  and 
therefore  culpable. 

6.  Inability  is  not  an  inability  to  exercise  volitions; 
but  an  inability  to  be  willing  to  exercise  holy  volitions. 


Section  IV.    Proof  of  Inability. 

Jno.  3:3.  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom of  God. 

Jno.  3:6.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  and  that  which 
is  born  of  the  spirit  is  spirit. 

Jno.  6:44.  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  who  hath 
sent  me  draw  him. 

Jno.  15:4-5.  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself  except  as 
it  abide  in  the  vine,  no  more  can  you  except  ye  abide  in  me.  With- 
out me  ye  can  do  nothing. 

Rom.  8:7.  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  and  is  not 
subject  to  the  law  of  God  neither  indeed  can  be;  so  then  they  that 
are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God. 

I.  Cor.  15:10.     By  the  grace  of  God  I  am  what  I  am. 

II.  Cor.  3:5.  Not  sufficient  of  ourselves  to  think  any  good 
thing. 

I.  Cor.  4:7.  Who  maketh  thee  to  differ  and  what  hast  thou  that 
thou  didst  not  receive? 

Ephes.  2:8.  By  grace  have  ye  been  saved  through  faith  and 
that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God. 

Catechism  82,  Is  any  man  able  perfectly  to  keep  the 
commandments  of  God? 

Section  V.    What  can  man  do  in  his  salvation? 

1.  He  can  hear  God's  message  concerning  himself 
and  learn  of  his  sinfulness  and  inability. 

2.  He  can  examine  the  perfection  of  God's  law  and 
discover  how  far  he  falls  short  of  it. 

3.  He  can  try  to  obey  that  law,  which  will  still  more 
convince  him  of  his  inability. 

4.  He  can  learn  that  there  is  no  hope  for  him  without 
divine  grace. 

—115— 


5.  He  can  call  on  God  to  do  the  work  that  he  cannot 
do  himself;  he  can  say  with  David:  "Create  in  me  a  clean 
heart  O  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me." 

Even  this  implies  that  God's  grace  has  been  active  in 
awakening  him  to  a  sense  of  his  danger  and  guilt.  And 
besides  it  is  all  of  God's  grace  that  the  means  are  fur- 
nished to  instruct  him,  and  warn  him,  and  point  the  way 
of  safety  and  life. 

Section  VI.    Objections  Answered. 

1.  If  not  able  then  not  under  obligation  to  keep  God's 
law.  That  depends  on  how  the  inability  arose.  If  it  is  a 
created  inability  then  there  can  be  no  obligation;  but  if 
acquired  the  obligation  remains. 

2.  If  unable  to  obey  divine  law  then  we  are  not  free. 
This  objection  grows  out  of  a  confused  idea  of  freedom. 
A  man  is  a  slave  to  sin  but  acts  out  his  own  inherent  pro- 
clivities, and  so  is  free. 

Question  is  asked:  Can  a  sinner  repent  if  he  will? 
That  depends  on  the  meaning  of  "will."  If  by  "will"  we 
mean  inclination  being  willing  on  the  whole,  then  the 
answer  is,  Yes.  But  that  is  itself  repentance;  and  merely 
means  can  a  sinner  repent  if  he  repents?  If  by  "will"  we 
.mean  volition,  the  answer  is.  No,  for  a  man  cannot  change 
his  nature  by  a  mere  volition. 

3.  If  no  ability,  nothing  to  do.  Answer:  I  cannot 
heal  myself  but  can  apply  to  the  physician.  Shown  above 
what  a  man  can  do. 

4.  If  must  depend  on  God  must  wait  his  time.  God's 
time  is  now.  If  man  feels  his  own  ability  he  will  take  his 
own  time. 

5.  Why  command  a  man  to  do  what  he  cannot?  Be- 
cause God  bids  us  do  so.  And  further  God  supplies  the 
needed  grace,  "My  grace  is  sufficient." 


— ii6 — 


PART  THIRD. 


Chapter 


SOTERIOLOGY. 
Index  Page. 

I.     PRESUPPOSITIONS     OF     SOTERIOL- 
OGY. 


Chapter       II.     GOD'S  PURPOSE  TO  SAVE. 

The  Order  of  the  Decrees. 
The  Covenant  of  Redemption. 
The  Covenant  of  Grace. 
The  Doctrine  of  Election. 
Various  Viev/s  of  the  Nature  of  Elec- 
tion. 


Section 

I. 

Section 

II. 

Section 

III. 

Section 

IV. 

Section 

V. 

Chapter      III. 


THE     HISTORICAL 
OF  REDEMPTION. 


ANTECEDENTS 


Section  I.     The  Typolog-y  of  the  Scriptures. 

Section        II.     Prophecy. 

Section       III.     The  Heathen  Religions. 

Section  IV.  The  Conclusions  of  Human  Speculation 
and  Philosophy. 

Section  V.  The  Awakening"  of  Universal  Expecta- 
tion. 

Section      VI.     A  Growing-  Revelation. 


Chapter      IV.     THE  REDEEMER. 

Section  I. 

Section        II. 
Section      III. 


The  Incarnation. 
The  Person  of  Christ. 
Christ's  Mediatorial  Offices. 


Chapter       V.     THE  ATONEMENT. 

Section  I.     The  Importance  of  the  Doctrine. 

Section        II.     Terms  Defined. 

Section      III.     The  Two-fold  Work  of  the  Atonement. 

Section  IV.  The  Atonement  Expresses  the  Total 
Divine  Nature. 

Section        V.     The  Main  Features  of  the  Atonement. 

Section      VI.     Objections  to  the  Atonement. 

Section     VII.     Theories  of  the  Atonement. 

Section  VIII.  The  Vicarious  Versus  the  Moral-Influ- 
ence View. 

Section      IX.     Eternal  Atonement. 

Section        X.     Union  of  Objective  and  Subjective. 

— ii8-~ 


The  following"  chapters  dealing'  with  the  application 
of  the  atonement  may  be  called  Pneumatology,  or  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  properly  a  part  of 
Soteriolog"y. 

Chapter      VI.  VOCATION. 

Chapter    VII.  GRACE. 

Chapter  VIII.  REGENERATION. 

Chapter      IX.  FAITH. 

Chapter       X.  CONVERSION. 

Chapter      XL  JUSTIFICATION. 

Section  I.  Definitions  of  Justification. 

Section  il.  The  Nature  of  Justification. 

Section  III.  The  Ground  of  Justification. 

Section  IV.  The  Means,  Condition  or  Instrumental 

Cause. 

Section  V.  The  Effect  of  Justification. 

Section  VI.  Difficulties  and  Objections. 

Chapter    XII.     SANCTIFICATION. 

Section  I.  Differs  from  Justification. 

Section  II.  Definition  of  Sanctification. 

Section  III.  A  Supernatural  Work. 

Section  IV.  Agency  and  Means  of  Sanctification. 

Section  V.  Effect  of  Sanctification. 

Section  VI.  Perfectionism. 

Chapter  XIII.     PERSEVERANCE. 

Section  I.  Statement. 

Section  II.  Proof. 

Section  III.  Objections. 

Section  IV.  Answers  to  Objections. 

Chapter  XIV.     THE  SACRAMENTS. 

Section  I.  Definition. 

Section  II.  Efficacy  of  the  Sacraments. 

Section  III.  The  Number  of  the  Sacraments. 

Section  IV.  Baptism. 

Section  V.  The  Lord's  Supper. 


-119— 


PART  THIRD,  SOTERIOLOGY. 

Soteriology,  (soteria  logos)  means  the  doctrine  con- 
cerning" salvation.  In  general  it  embraces,  God's  purpose 
to  save,  the  person  and  work  of  the  Redeemer,  and  the 
application  of  redemption  by  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men. 

Chapter  I.    The  Presuppositions  of  Soteriology. 

By  this  is  meant  the  basal  facts  on  which  the  doctrine 
of  Soteriology  rests. 

1.  God's  sovereign  rule.  God  as  creator,  ruler  and 
saviour  underlies  all  the  provisions  of  salvation. 

2.  Man's  responibility  to  his  creator,  and  his  capacity 
for  weal  and  woe. 

3.  The  covenant  of  works,  expressing  God's  will  and 
man's  obligation. 

(a)  The  law  of  God  requires  perfect  obedience. 

God  as  a  perfect  being  cannot  require  less  than  per- 
fection in  his  moral  law. 

Matt.  5:48,  Be  ye  perfect  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect. 
I.  Pet.  1:16,  It  is  written:  Be  ye  holy  for  I  am  holy. 
I.  Jno.   5:17,  All   unrig-hteousness   is  sin. 

(b)  That  law  cannot  be  lowered.  There  can  be  no 
partial  abrogation  of  God's  law  on  account  of  man's  in- 
ability.   That  law  must  be  met  to  the  last  letter. 

God's  law  expresses  his  essential  being.  All  God's 
laws  are  in  harmonj^  with  immutable  right  and  truth. 
God's  law  can  no  more  be  set  aside  than  the  attributes  of 
his  nature  can  be  set  aside. 

Mercj^  can  not  infringe  on  justice,  else  there  would  be 
disharmony  among  the  attributes  of  God's  being.  Hence 
the  necessity  of  an  expiatorj^  atonement  that  expressed 
justice  and  mercy  alike  and  maintained  the  harmony  of 
the  divine  nature. 

To  abrogate  God's  laws  is  to  abrogate  God's  essential 
nature. 

4.  Man's  fall. 

.  (a)  This  involves  his  condemnation  and  sentence  to 
death. 

(b)  His  original  sin,  corruption  of  nature,  and  inabil- 
ity. 

On  the  basis  of  these  facts  Soteriology  proceeds. 


-I2( 


Chapter  II.    God's  Purpose  to  Save  Man. 

Section  I.     This  involves  the  order  of  the  decrees. 

This  refers  to  the  logical  order  in  thought  rather  than 
to  a  chronological  order,  inasmuch  as  the  decrees  of  God 
may  be  considered  to  be  simultaneous  in  respect  to  time. 

1.  The  Supra-lapsarian  view. 

This  as  the  term  indicates  puts  the  decree  of  election 
before  that  of  permitting  the  fall. 

The  order  therefore  would  stand  thus: 

(a)  The  decree  to  save  some  and  reprobate  others. 

(b)  The  decree  to  create  both  classes  for  the'se  ends. 

(c)  The  decree  to  permit  the  fall. 

(d)  The  decree  to  provide  a  salvation  for  the  elect. 

2.  The  Sub-lapsarian  view. 

This  as  the  term  indicates  is  that  the  decree  to  elect 
is  logically  subsequent  to  the  decree  to  permit  the  fall. 

The  decree  to  elect  contemplates  men  as  already 
fallen.    The  order  then  would  read  thus: 

(a)  The  decree  to  create. 

(b)  The  decree  to  permit  the  fall. 

(c)  The  decree  to  provide  salvation  sufficient  for  all. 

(d)  The  decree  to  secure  the  application  of  this  salva- 
tion to  some. 

3.  The  Sub-lapsarian  limited-atonement  view. 

This  makes  (c)  and  (d)  of  the  above  order  exchange 
places. 

The  decree  to  provide  salvation  having  reference  spe- 
cifically and  only  to  the  elect;  thus  limited  in  its  purpose 
and  effect. 

The  order  would  read  thus: 

(a)  To  create. 

(b)  To  permit  the  fall. 

(c)  To  elect  some. 

(d) .  To  provide   salvation  for  those   elected. 

This  puts  the  purpose  of  the  application  into  the  pur- 
pose of  the  making.  It  may  be  said  in  behalf  of  the  latter 
view  that  God  must  have  intended  what  has  taken  place, 
and  if  the  atonement  is  limited  in  its  application  God 
must  have  intended  it  so  to  be,  and  thus  it  is  limited  in  its 
purpose;  that  the  purpose  of  God  must  conform  to  the 
event,  else  God's  purposes  fail.  All  this  is  undeniable. 
However,  whatever  limitations  there  are  may  be  better 
conceived  of  and  treated  as  belonging  to  the  application 
than  to  the  making  of  the  atonement. 

— 121 — 


It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  atonement  is  infinite  in 
its  inherent  value,  capable  of  universal  application,  and 
that  God's  purpose  must  have  embraced  the  making-  of 
such  an  atonement,  but  limited  in  its  application  to  those 
who,  in  God's  wise  choice,  are  the  recipients  of  his 
efficacious  grace. 

Section  II.     The  covenant  of  redemption. 

1.  Catechism  20,  Did  God  leave  all  mankind  to  perish 
in  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery?  God  having-  out  of  his 
mere  good  pleasure  from  all  eternity  elected  some  to  ever- 
lasting life,  did  enter  into  a  covenant  of  grace,  to  deliver 
them  out  of  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery  and  to  bring  them 
into  an  estate  of  salvation  by  a  Redeemer. 

2.  There  was  such  a  covenant  made. 

(a)  The  parties  to  the  covenant,  the  Father  and  the 
Son. 

Jno.  6:37,  All  that  the  Father  giveth  to  me  shall  come  to  me. 
Jno.  6:39,  Of  all  that  he  hath  given  me  I  should  lose  none. 
Jno.  8:42,  Neither  came  I  of  myself,   but  he  sent  me. 
Jno.  10:29,  My  Father  who  gave  them  me,  etc. 

(b)  The  plan  of  the  covenant  was  to  save  man  by  a 
redeemer,  who  should  become  a  substitute  for  man,  bear 
the  penalty  of  his  sin,  fulfill  all  the  demands  of  God's  law, 
justify  or  acquit  the  sinner  on  condition  of  faith,  restore 
him  to  God's  favor,  sanctify  him  wholly  and  glorify  him 
forever. 

(c)  This  covenant  was  made  in  eternitj^  but  takes 
effect  in  time.  It  first  appears  in  human  history  at  the  fall 
in  the  promise  of  a  redeemer. 

Section  III.     The  Covenant  of  Grace. 

Issuing  from  the  covenant  of  redemption  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son  is  the  covenant  of  grace  between  God 
and  man. 

1.  The  plan  of  salvation  is  always  presented  as  a 
covenant,  with  parties,  conditions,  promises,  and  penalties. 

2.  The  covenant  of  grace  takes  the  place  of  the 
covenant  of  works  in  which  man  failed  through  the  fall. 

3.  The  covenant  is  the  same  in  all  dispensations, 
patriarchal.  Mosaic  and  Christian.  To  Adam  was  given 
the  promise  of  a  redeemer,  and  rites  and  sacrifices  insti- 
tuted to  prefigure  the  atonement. 

To  Noah  after  the  flood  the  covenant  was  renewed. 

— 1 22 — 


With  Abraham  and  his  seed  the  covenant  was  re-estab- 
lished. 

Moses  and  Israel  embraced  that  covenant  as  a  national 
obligation. 

The  gospel  in  the  New  Testament  is  still  the  procla- 
mation of  the  covenant. 

4.  The  condition  is  the  same  in  all  dispensations. 
Faith  in  a  redeemer  to  come  held  the  same  place  as  faith 
in  a  redeemer  already  come. 

5.  Christ  is  the  redeemer  in  all  dispensations. 

The  Old  Testament  saints  were  saved  not  by  the 
works  of  the  law  but  by  faith  in  a  redeemer  to  come. 

Gal.  3:18,  Foi"  if  the  inheritance  is  of  the  law,  it  is  no  more  oi 
promise;  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  promise. 

Section  IV.     The  Doctrine  of  Election. 

1.     Scriptural  statement. 

Ephes.  1:4,  According-  as  he  chose  us  in  him  before  the  founda- 
tion  of   the  world. 

Ephes.  1:5,  Having  in  love  predestinated  us  for  adoption  as  sons 
through  Jesus  Christ  to  himself  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of 
his  will. 

Jno.   15:16,  Ye  have  not  chosen  me  but  I  have  chosen  you. 

Jno.   15:19,  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world. 

Acts  22:14,  The  God  of  our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee  that  thou 
shouldst  know  his  will,  and  «ee  the  Righteous  One  and  hear  the 
voice  of  his  mouth. 

Rom.  8:29-30,  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predes- 
tinate, etc. 

11.  Thess.  2:13,  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to 
salvation. 

I.  Peter  1:2,  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God — unto 
obedience. 

I.  Peter  2:9,  But  ye  are  a  chosen  generation — who  hath  called 
you  out  of  darkness. 

Isa.  41:9,  Shows  God's  distinguishing  choice. 

Jno.  6:37,  All  that  the  Father  giveth  to  me  shall  come  to  me. 

Jno.  6:44,  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  who  hath 
sent  me  draw  him. 

Acts  13:48,  And  as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  be- 
lieved. 

Rom.  11:5,  a  femnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace,  and  if 
by  grace,   then  it  is  no  more  of  works. 

Rom.  9:11,  For  the  children  not  yet  being  born — that  the  pur- 
pose of  God,  according  to  election  might  stand. 

Ephes.  2:10,  We  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  good  works  which  God  made  ready  beforehand,  that  we  should 
Walk  in   them. 

These  passages  and  others  show  that  God  elects  men 
to  salvation. 

—123— 


etc. 


2.     The  extent  of  the  elective  decree. 

How  far  does  it  apply  in  the  plan  of  salvation? 

A  general  view  of  the  plan  is  as  follows: — 

Purpose  to  save. 

Choice  of  Redeemer. 

Sending-  him  in  the  incarnation. 

Making'  the  atonement. 

Offer  of  salvation  to  men. 

Sending  the  g"ospel  to  the  nations,  Europe,  America, 

Proclaiming"  it  in  local  churches. 

Bringing-  the  external  call  to  the  individual. 

Persuasion  b^^  the  Spirit  to  accept  the  call. 

Reg-eneration  of  all  who  accept. 

Regeneration  of  some  who  never  heard  the  call. 

Regeneration  of  incapables,  e.g.  infants,  imbeciles, 
etc. 

Regeneration  of  some  who  refused,  making-  them  will- 
ing- by  special  grace. 

Passing  by  some  who  persistently  refuse. 

Using  this  enumeration  as  a  merely  tentative  or  rough 
outline  of  events  in  the  plan,  the  question  is,  how  far  down 
the  line  does  the  decree  of  election  extend? 

Does  it  stop  short  of  the  individual  at  any  point  m 
the  line? 

Is  election  racial,  national,  general,  or  personal? 

Is  it  merelj"  a  purpose  to  save,  without  terminating  on 
a  particular  object? 

What  is  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  election? 

A  study  of  the  Scriptural  passages  will  determine  the 
answer. 

A  careful  observation  of  the  passages  adduced  will 
reveal  that  the  Scriptures  teach  an  election  that  is  per- 
sonal. 

No  other  interpretation  can  be  put  on  the  texts  that 
embody  the  doctrine. 

Section  V.  Various  Views  of  the  Nature  and  Ground 
of  Election. 

The  doctrine  of  election  is  a  common  doctrine  of 
Christendom.  Practically  all  evangelical  churches  hold 
the  doctrine  of  election  in  one  form  or  another.  There  is 
however  some  varietj^  of  view  as  the  following  discussiorx 
will  show. 

1.     Conditional  Election, 

This  view  regards  election  asr  entirelj'  conditional. 

— 124 — • 


The  election  rests  on  the  condition  of  faith  and  holy 
living-. 

God's  decree  determines  to  save  the  believer  and  con- 
demn the  unbeliever,  to  reward  the  righteous  and  punish 
the  wicked. 

Farther  than  that  the  decree  does  not  extend.  The 
condition  is  supplied  by  the  undetermined  will  of  man. 
This  view  has  its  evident  weakness, 
ist.  If  anj'thing  is  undetermined  it  cannot  be  fore- 
known. A  purely  conditional  election  renders  nothing 
certain  and  therefore  the  elect  are  outside  the  compass  of 
God's  knowledge.  The  Socinians  Avere  frank  enough  to 
admit  that  God  cannot  know  the  uncertain  actions  of 
men.  The  Arminians  were  less  consistent  in  shrinking 
from  such  a  conclusion. 

2nd.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  divine  decree  is 
immutable. 

Is.    46:10,    Declaring'    the    end    from    the    beginning — my    covinsel 
shall  stand  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure. 

Rom.  9:11, — not  of  works  but  of  him  that  calleth. 
Whatever  rests   wholly  on   the   human   will   must   be 
mutable  for  the  human  will  is  mutable. 

3rd.  "Faith  is  the  gift  of  God";  if  the  gift  of  God  it 
is  not  wholly  separable  from  the  divine  decree. 

4th.    The  language  of  the  Scriptures  shows  that  elec- 
tion is  personal,  and  that  men  are  elected  TO  faith  and 
holiness;    therefore    a   conditional   election    does   not   cor- 
respond to  the  Scriptural  representations  in  the  matter. 
That  election  is  personal  is  shown  by: — 
Phil.  4:3, — whose  names  are  in  the  book  of  life. 
Heb.   12:23, — who  are   registered   in  heaven. 

I.  Thess.   1:4,  Knowing,  brethren  beloved  of  God,  3'our  election. 
That  election  is  to  faith  and  g^ood  works  is  seen  in: — 
Acts    13:48, — and   as   many   as   were  ordained   to   eternal   life   be- 
lieved. 

Jno.    15:16, — and    ordained    you,    that    you    should    go    and    bring 
forth   fruit. 

Ephes.   2:10, — created   in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works. 
I.    Pet.    1:2,    Elect — unto   obedience. 
If  election  is  unto  faith  and  good  works,  then  faith 
and  g"ood  works  can  not  be  the  condition  of  election. 

2.     The  Doctrine  of  Limited  Objective. 

This  view  does  not  concern  the  g'round  of  the  elective 
decree,  but  the  extent  of  it;  or  the  terminus  ad  quem. 

Under  this  view  may  be  included  all  schemes  that 
stop  short  of  the  election  of  the  individual  to  salvation. 

John  Milton  held  that  "there  is  no  particular  predes- 
tination or  election  but  only  general." 

—125— 


Some  limit  the  divine  decree  to  the  predestination  of 
certain  nations,  communities,  and  generations  to  the 
knowledge  of  true  religion,  and  the  external  privileges  of 
the  gospel. — So  Archbishop  Sumner. 

The  gospel  has  come  to  Europe  and  America  while  the 
orient  has  lain  in  darkness  and  the  curse  of  false  religions. 
This  great  fact  we  must  all  admit;  but  does  this  exhaust 
the  meaning  of  the  term  "election"? 

Others  make  election  terminate  on  the  outward  cir- 
cumstances of  the  individual.  Archbishop  Whately  says: 
"Election  is  the  choice  of  individual  men  to  niembership 
in  the  external  church  and  the  means  of  grace." 

No  man  ever  had  a  chance  to  choose  when  or  where 
he  would  be  born,  whether  his  parents  should  be  heathen 
or  Christian,  moral  or  depraved.  Providence  casts  some 
into  favorable,  and  some  into  unfavorable  circumstances 
Some  have  the  benefits  of  the  means  of  grace  from  in- 
fancy, and  some  enjo^'  little  or  none  of  these  advantages. 
All  these  things  are  due  to  God's  over-ruling  providence, 
and  not  to  human  choice. 

But  is  this  the  terminus  ad  quem  of  election?  Does 
God's  decree  determine  the  external  circumstances  and 
stop  there?  What  is  the  ultimate  objective  of  election? 
Is  it  circumstantial  or  personal? 

La3^  these  views  side  by  side  with  the  passages  from 
God's  word  teaching  the  doctrine  of  election  and  it  will  be 
seen  wherein  they  fall  short. 

3.  Arminianism  sa^'s:  Foreseen  faith  and  works  is 
the  ground  of  election. 

What  appeal  to  Scripture? 

Rom.   8:29,  Whom   he  did  foreknow  he   also  did  predestinate. 
I.   Peter   1:2,   Elect  according   to  the  foreknowledge  of  God. 

Answer — This  doubtless  refers  to  God's  knowledge  of 
the  persons  whom  he  would  elect,  not  to  foreseen  faith  as 
the  ground  of  election. 

Difficulties  of  Arminianism. 

Leaves  no  basis  for  foreknowledge.  How  can  God 
foreknow  unless  he  first  determined?  Makes  man  elect 
himself,  therefore  no  real  election  by  God. 

"If  man  niay  fall  from  grace  it  cannot  be  certain  if  he 
has  true  faith  till  after  death;  therefore  his  election  must 
take  place  after  he  is  dead." — Shedd. 

Salvation  of  infants,  imbeciles,  dying  sinners,  some 
heathen  must  depend  on  the  mere  choice  of  God,  and  not 
on  foreseen  faith  and  works. 

The  old  Arminians  held  that  election  was  general,  not 
personal,  that  the  decree  of  election  did  not  concern  indi- 

— 126 — 


viduals    but   was    God's   purpose   to    save    believers    as    a 
class. 

4.     The  Lutheran  View. 

It  is  difficult  to  present  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
election  because  of  contrariety  of  view. 

Luther  was  an  Aug"ustinian  predestinationist. 

Melancthon  was  also  in  his  earlier  years;  afterwards 
he  inclined  to  synergism.  It  is  said  however:  "Still  later 
Melancthon  declared  for  the  view  that  the  adjutorium  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  required  even  in  order  tO'  the  will  to 
accept  the  Gospel."  (Classical  meaning  of  adjuro  is:  to 
adjure,  compel,  solemnly  swear.) 

The  Form  of  Concord,  the  acknowledged  creed  of 
Lutherans,  embraced  the  following  positions: 

It  denies  the  doctrine  of  absolute  election. 

But  admits  that  there  is  an  election;  but  that  nothing 
in  us  is  the  cause  of  election. 

It  teaches  man's  spiritual  inability, — that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  sole  agent  of  regeneration;  but  that  the  grace 
of  God  may  be  effectually  resisted. 

The  saved  do  not  resist;  and  the  lost  effectually  resist 
the  offered  grace.  These  propositions  seemed  somewhat 
unsatisfactory  to  many  and  led  to  subsequent  diversity  of 
view. 

Man's  absolute  inability  and  the  Spirit's  absolute 
agency  in  regeneration  seemed  to  agree  with  predestina- 
tion. 

And  man's  ability  to  resist  the  grace  and  power  of  the 
Spirit  seems  out  of  harmony  with  the  omnipotence  of  that 
grace  and  power  in  regeneration.  And  the  non-resistence 
that  distinguishes  the  saved  is  hardly  consistent  with  the 
view  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  man  regarded  as  a  cause 
of  election. 

The  difficulties  of  the  creed  were  bridged  over  by 
saying  that  while  fallen  man  has  not  spiritual  ability, 
librum  arbitrium  in  spiritualibus,  as  asserted  by  Semi- 
Pelagianism  and  synergism,  yet  he  has  natural  ability, 
librum  arbitrium  in  civilibus;  he  has  his  natural  powers, 
can  read  and  hear  God's  word,  receive  the  sacraments,  use 
means  of  grace  etc.  These  have  such  inherent  super- 
natural power  as  to  produce  a  saving  effect  on  all  who  do 
not  resist  their  influence. 

Thus  the  employment  of  natural  powers  afforded 
human  co-operation,  while  divine  grace  was  the  efficacious 
cause  of  salvation.     Still  it  must  be  observed  that  divine 

—  127— 


grace   is   needed    for   the   right    use   of  even   our   natural 
powers. 

The  later  Lutheran  theologians  have  abandoned  the 
position  of  the  Form  of  Concord  because  as  they  say:  "it 
ascribes  the  highest  spiritual  efficiency  to  a  power  not 
spiritual  in  nature,  although  through  the  medium  of  the 
means  of  grace." 

They  teach  that  freedom  of  choice  is  restored  by  the 
power  of  g-race  through  using-  the  means  of  g-race.  This 
freedom  of  choice  restored  has  then  to  decide  for  or 
ag-ainst  Christianity.  This  abandons  the  view  of  the  Form 
of  Concord  that  in  the  elect  there  is  no  ground  of  their 
election.  This  leaves  out  of  sight  the  case  of  the  unbap- 
tized  infant,  incapable,  and  heathen;  whose  salvation,  if 
saved  at  all,  must  rest  on  an  absolute  decree. 

This  view  will  meet  with  further  consideration  under 
the  head  of  Dorner's  view;  he  being  one  of  the  later 
Lutheran  Theologians. 

5.     Dorner's  View. 

Man  by  the  fall  came  under  bondag-e  to  sin.  This 
deprived  him  of  his  freedom  of  will  or  freedom  of  decision. 

By  his  natural  powers  unaided  by  grace  he  cannot 
decide  for  Christianity.  The  first  aim  of  grace  therefore 
is  to  restore  freedom  to  the  power  of  making  such  a 
decision. 

By  the  knowledge  and  persuasions  of  the  gospel  and 
by  prevenient  workings  of  God's  Spirit  man  is  restored  to 
his  freedom.  Some  culture  by  Christian  grace  must  pre- 
cede the  decision  for  or  against  Christ.  There  needs  a 
gratia  praeparans  et  praeveniens  in  order  to  give  the 
means  necessary  to  man  for  the  decision.  Man  given  this 
freedom  by  supernatural  grace  is  now  able  to  make  the 
decisive  resolve  of  life. 

"Thus  is  it  possible  to  restore  freedom  in  the  natural 
man  who  lacked  it  in  spiritualibus,  and  thereby  absolute 
predestinationism,  Pelagianism  and  Synergism  are  ex- 
cluded." 

"This  goal  (decision)  is  certainly  and  inevitably 
reached  in  the  case  of  all,  that  they  know  what  they  are 
doing  in  rejecting  Christianity." 

"The  call  to  salvation  and  power  to  decide  in  its  favor 
must  come  to  all  in  due  course." 

Yet  Dorner  feels  that  he  cannot  entirely  dispense  with 
election.  He  concedes  that  election  determines  to  what 
nations  and  individuals  the  gospel  is  sent. 

"The  called  are  all  called  to  salvation  and  as  called 

—128— 


they  are  set  apart  or  elected  to  believe  and  be  saved,"  and 
then  he  adds:  "Rather  according-  to  Scripture  there  is  an 
election  in  the  stricter  sense.  Holy  Scripture  teaches  the 
eternal  election  of  believers  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world." 

On  its  face  this  admission  looks  like  strict  Calvinism 
and  if  that  is  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  for  us 
the  final  word. 

Remarks  on  Dorner's  View. 

In  the  fall  man  did  not  lose  his  free  agency. 

The  unregenerate  man  is  still  a  free  agent,  and  fol- 
lows sin  by  deliberate  choice. 

Whatever  Dorner  means  by  the  loss  of  freedom  it 
cannot  mean  free  agency. 

But  in  the  fall  man  did  lose  his  ability  to  render 
obedience  to  God's  law,  and  ability  to  retrieve  his  lost 
position  in  God's  favor.  His  inability  in  this  respect  was 
complete. 

Corruption  of  nature  and  bias  to  sin  or  bondage  in 
sin  was  the  direct  result  of  the  fall;  but  man's  ability  to 
choose,  in  accordance  with  his  own  nature  and  desire, 
remained;  and  that  is,  in  theological  terminology,  called 
freedom  or  liberty. 

Freedom  and  ability  are  not  the  same.  I  have  freedom 
to  fly  but  not  the  ability. 

Dorner's  special  point  is  that  prevenient  grace  restores 
to  man  the  freedom  to  decide.  If  that  is  all,  man's  choice 
of  God  would  be  absolutely  contingent  and  not  certain. 
It  would  still  be  possible  that  all  men  might  decide 
wrongly.  But  freedom  of  decision  is  not  the  vital  point 
on  the  human  side  but  actual  decision.  Does  God  merely 
afford  men  freedom  of  decision,  or  bring  them  to  actual 
decision? 

"It  is  not  ye  that  work,  but  God  that  worketh  in  you 
both  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good  pleasure." 

If,  as  Dorner  admits,  election  determines  to  what 
nations  and  individuals  the  gospel  shall  be  sent,  and  if  as 
he  further  teaches,  prevenient  grace  awakens  the  con- 
science of  the  sinner,  breaks  his  bondage  to  sin,  inclines 
his  desire  Godward,  awakens  longings  for  moral  worth 
and  brings  him  to  the  point  of  decision,  how  near  to,  or 
how  far  is  this  from,  personal  election?  Dorner  says: 
"There  is  no  election  excluding  freedom  of  acceptance  or 
rejection  and  replacing  it  by  an  almighty  volition"  and 
"the  power  to  decide  must  come  to  all  in  due  course." 

We  reply,  God  is  sovereign  and  may  secure  acceptance 

— 129 — ■ 


by  the  fiat  of  regeneration  as  well  as  by  the  persuasion  of 
prevenient  grace. 

Again  infants  and  incapables  cannot  decide;  their 
only  alternative  in  Dorner's  view,  if  that  point  must  be 
reached  by  all,  is  a  second  probation.  Dorner  does  not 
say,  in  loco,  when  or  where  this  opportunity  comes  to  all, 
but  in  his  eschatology  we  find  the  suspected  sequence  in 
the  doctrine  of  a  second  probation  between  death  and  the 
resurrection. 

6.  The  Augustinian  or  Calvinistic  view  teaches  that 
the  ground  of  election  is  found  in  God's  sovereign 
pleasure. 

This  view  is  held  by  the  Presbyterian  bodies,  the 
Reformed  bodies,  the  view  taught  in  the  Thirty  Nine 
Articles  of  the  Anglican  Church,  Baptists,  the  Welsh 
Methodists,  etc. 

For  an  extended  statement  of  this  position  see  The 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  or  the  Canons  of  the 
Synod  of  Dort. 

For  a  brief  statement  we  have  Westminster  Shorter 
Catechism,  Quest.  20: 

"Did  God  leave  all  mankind  to  perish  in  the  state  of 
sin  and  misery?"  ' 

"God  having  out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  from  all 
eternity,  elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  did  enter  into  a 
covenant  of  grace  to  deliver  them  out  of  the  estate  of  sin 
and  misery  and  bring  them  into  an  estate  of  salvation  by 
a  redeemer." 

Proof  I,  from  Scripture — 
Ephes.     1:5,    Having    predestinated    us    according    to    the    good 
pleasure  of  his  own  will. 

Ephes.  i:ii,  Being  predestinated  according  to  the  purpose  of 
him  who  worketh  all   things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will. 

II.  Tim.  1:9,  Who  hath  saved  us  and  called  us  with  a  holy  call- 
ing, not  according  to  our  works  but  according  to  his  own  purpose, 
etc. 

Rom.  9:11,  For  the  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having 
done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  elec- 
tion might  stand,  not  of  works,  but  of  him  that  calleth, — It  was 
said:     The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger. 

Rom.   9:15,   I  will   have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy. 
Rom.   9:21,   Hath   not   the  potter  power  over   the  clay. 
Rom.  11:5-6,  A  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.     And 
if  by  grace,   not  of  works. 

Proof  2.  Repentance,  faith,  and  works  are  the  result 
of  the  decree;  not  the  cause. 

Ephes.  1:4,  Chose  us  that  we  should  be  holy. 
I.  Peter  1:2, — unto  obedience. 
Phil.   2:13,   It  is  God  who  worketh  in  you,  etc. 
Ephes.  2:8,  Saved  through  faith  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is 
the  gift  of  God. 

—130— 


II.    Thess.    2:13,    Chosen    you    to   salvation    through   sanctification 
and  belief  of  the   truth. 

Rom.  8:29,  Predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  likeness  of  His 
Son. 

Acts  13:48,  As  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed. 

Observe — That  if  grace  is  the  g^ift  of  God  it  is  not  the 
cause  of  the  gift.  The  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  is  that 
faith,  etc.  results  from  the  decree  and  not  that  the  decree 
results  from  the  faith. 

Proof  3.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  an  election  by  God. 
If  language  has  any  meaning  this  must  mean  that  God 
chooses  the  individual  unto  salvation.  Any  view  that 
substitutes  for  God's  choice  a  scheme  that  makes  man 
elect  himself  does  not  measure  up  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures  on  this  subject. 

Proof  4.  God's  choice  involves  all  the  antecedents  of 
man's  salvation  without  which  man  could  not  exercise  any 
choice  at  all.  No  man  ever  chose  when  and  where  he 
would  be  born,  who  would  become  his  parents,  how  he 
would  be  taught  and  trained,  whether  the  Gospel  was  to 
be  sent  to  Europe  and  America,  or  whether  they  were  to 
remain  heathen,  whether  the  Gospel  should  ever  sound  in 
his  ears  or  he  forever  remain  ignorant  of  its  contents 
and  call. 

All  these  things  that  enter  so  much  into  man's  salva- 
tion were  chosen  absolutely  and  alone  by  God. 

Proof  5.  If  the  ultimate  and  determining  element  in 
man's  salvation  rests  in  man  and  not  in  God,  there  would 
be  the  possibility  that  no  man  would  ever  be  saved  and 
Christ  might  have  suffered  and  died  in  vain.  God  not 
only  made  certain  an  atonement  but  made  certain  its 
application  in  the  saving  of  men. 

Proof  6.  If  infants,  imbeciles,  incapables  and  any 
heathen  are  saved  it  must  be  by  the  direct  and  sovereign 
election  of  God.  If  we  were  called  upon  to  pray  for  a 
dying  man  in  his  last  coma  we  would  do  so  in  the  full 
assurance  that  it  was  God's  undoubted  prerogative  to 
answer  our  prayers  and  save  that  man.  And  thankful 
would  we  be  that  it  was  God's  choice  and  not  man's  that 
determined  that  man's  salvation. 

Proof  7.  If  the  initiative  of  salvation  is  with  God, 
and  conviction,  persuasion,  and  enabling  are  the  work  of 
God's  Spirit,  then  election  is  a  foregone  conclusion. 

Observe — God's  sovereign  election  affords  a  larger 
hope  than  any  other  view  of  election  that  we  have  con- 
sidered. If  God  may  sovereignly  elect  whom  he  will  then 
all  ages,  races,  and  conditions  are  open  to  his  benevolent 
choice.     We  may  therefore  indulge  a  hope  for  many  who 


have  never  heard  the  gospel,  and  for  the  man  at  whose 
bedside  we  pray  though  sunk  into  the  unconsciousness 
that  precedes  death. 

If  the  determining  choice  rests  with  the  perverted, 
rebellious,  depraved  human  will,  how  few  will  be  saved! 
but  if  on  the  will  of  the  God  who  loved,  and  gave,  and 
died  to  save,  then  a  great  multitude  whom  no  man  can 
number. 

There  is  always  larger  hope  in  God  than  in  man.  If 
our  hope  depends  on  man  we  lean  on  a  broken  reed;  if  on 
God  we  lean  on  an  almighty  arm.  Election  is  not  there- 
fore a  "horrible  doctrine"  of  narrow  limitation;  but  the 
ground  of  world-wide  expectation.  It  is  a  source  of  real 
comfort  and  blessed  matter  of  thankfulness  as  we  look  on 
a  world  ruined  by  sin  and  contemplate  its  chance  of 
salvation. 

Some  Objections  to  the  Calvinistic  View. 

It  is  inconsistent  with  free  agency. 

Answer: 

First,  The  man  that  is  convinced,  convicted  and  per- 
suaded by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God  to  confess  his  sins 
and  embrace  the  offered  salvation  is  as  free  as  the  man 
whom  you  persuade  to  take  a  walk  or  to  invest  in  gilt- 
edged  securities.  There  is  no  violation  of  his  free  agency. 
And  it  must  be  remembered  that  God  can  bring  to  bear 
sufficient  inducements  to  incline  any  man. 

Second,  The  man  who  resists  God's  call  by  word  and 
Spirit  and  providences,  and  whom  God  allows  to  pursue 
his  own  chosen  way  to  destruction  and  perdition,  cannot 
complain  that  he  is  not  a  free  agent.  He  has  chosen  his 
w^ay  and  followed  it. 

Third,  If  God  intervenes  over  all  opposition  and 
rebellion  on  the  part  of  the  man,  and  sovereignly  regen- 
erates him,  as  was  seemingly  the  case  with  Saul  of  Tarsus, 
at  the  height  of  his  rebellion,  that  man  is  still  a  free 
agent  in  every  act  of  his  life.  He  was  a  free  agent  in  his 
opposition,  he  is  a  free  agent  in  his  obedience;  and  in  his 
regeneration  he  was  not  an  agent  at  all. 

In  no  case  does  God's  decree  contravene  free  agency. 
And  it  is  God's  sovereign  right  to  regenerate  whom  he 
w411.  No  extrinsic  power  can  limit  God  nor  deprive  him 
of  his  sovereignty. 

It  represents  God  as  partial  in  his  dealings  with  men. 

Answer: 

As  a  matter  of  fact  God  does  not  treat  all  men  alike. 
Some  are  born  in  heathen  lands,  some  in  Christian  en- 
vironments.    Some  are  born  with  high  endowments,  some 

— 132— 


with  inferior  faculties.  God  chose  Israel  for  his  people, 
left  others  in  ignorance  of  the  true  God.  He  provided 
salvation  for  man,  left  fallen  angels  to  the  doom  of  their 
sin. 

The  parable  of  the  vineyard  laborers  shows  God  to  be 
sovereign  in  the  dispensation  of  his  gifts.  "Shall  I  not  do 
what  I  will  with  my  own?" 

It  is  unjust  to  the  non-elect. 

Answer: 

Strict  justice  would  condemn  all.  God  is  not  under 
obligation  to  save  any.  All  salvation  is  mercy;  all  con- 
demnation is  justice. 

Dr.  Strong  illustrates  thus:  —  "It  is  not  true  that, 
because  a  governor  pardons  one  convict  from  the  peniten- 
tiary, he  must  therfore  pardon  all.  When  he  pardons  one 
no  injury  is  done  to  the  rest." 

It  represents  God  as  acting  arbitrarily  and  without 
reason. 

Answer: 

That  is  asserting  more  than  any  man  knows.  We  do 
not  know  all  God's  reasons  for  saving  particular  men;  nor 
his  reasons  for  passing  some  by,  except  that  it  is  for  their 
sins. 

"God's  mere  good  pleasure"  does  not  mean  that  there 
are  no  reasons  in  God's  mind  why  he  acts  thus  or  so. 

"They  err  who  think  that  of  God's  will,  there  is  no 
reason  except  his  will." — Hooker's  Eccl.  Polity. 

Sovereignty  is  "just  a  name  for  what  is  unrevealed  in 
God." — T.  Erskine. 

A  particular  election  is  inconsistent  with  an  offer  to 
all. 

Answer: 

A.  A,  Hodge,  Outlines  p.  229,  says:  "Nothing  but  a 
sinful  unwillingness  can  prevent  any  one  who  hears  the 
gospel  from  receiving  and  enjoying  it.  The  gospel  is  for 
all,  election  is  a  special  grace  in  addition  to  that  offer. 
The  non-elect  may  come  if  they  will.  The  elect  will  come. 
The  decree  of  election  puts  no  barrier  before  men  prevent- 
ing them  from  accepting  the  gospel  offer.  Any  man,  elect 
or  non-elect,  will  be  saved  if  he  accepts.  The  non-elect 
are  left  to  act  as  they  are  freely  determined  by  their  own 
hearts." 

Rowland  Hill  was  criticised  for  preaching  election 
and  yet  exhorting  sinners  to  repent,  and  was  told  that  he 
should  preach  only  to  the  elect.  He  replied  that  if  his 
critic  would  put  a  chalk-mark  on  all  the  elect  he  would 
preach  only  to  them. 


God  bids  us  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all;  that  some  are 
not  saved,  is  because  of  their  willful,  sinful  rejection  of 
the  offered  mercy.  These,  as  the  Westminster  Confession 
says,  "God  is  pleased  to  pass  by  and  to  ordain  them  to 
dishonor  and  wrath  FOR  THEIR  SINS." 

There  are  mysteries  in  the  doctrine  of  election  before 
which  we  may  bow  in  humility;  but  as  to  the  FACT  of  an 
election,  the  Scriptures  leave  us  in  no  doubt. 


Chapter  III.    The  Historical  Antecedents  of  Redemption. 

Before  the  covenant  of  redemption  came  into  objective 
realization  long  ages  of  preparation  came  and  passed.  If 
our  first  parents  expected  the  Redeemer  in  their  immediate 
offspring  it  was  not  to  be.  If  the  uncertain  Gen.  4:1 
expresses  such  a  hope,  it  was  doomed  to  disappointment. 
Paul  declares.  Gal.  4:4,  "When  the  fulness  of  time  was 
come  God  sent  forth  his  Son." 

Among  the  developments  of  the  preparation  we  may 
mention: — 

Section  I.  The  typology  of  rite  and  ceremony,  of 
person  and  history. 

A  type  is  a  prefiguration  of  spiritual  things  in  visible 
form.  And  the  race  had  long  education  for  the  fact  of 
redemption  in  the  school  of  typology. 

In  Rom.  5:4  Paul  makes  the  first  Adam  the  type  of 
the  second  Adam.  The  rite  of  sacrifice  and  the  meaning 
of  the  shed  blood  in  this  religious  tutelage  dates  back  to 
the  gates  of  Eden. 

The  Lord  made  them  coats  of  skins;  presumably  from 
animals  sacrificed.  Abel  brought  the  firstlings  of  his  flock. 
Even  in  Abel's  day,  sacrifice  was  the  customary  thing, 
and  the  proper  and  improper  means  and  methods  already 
distinguished. 

The  trial  of  Abraham's  faith  in  Gen.  22  illustrates  the 
surrender  of  a  beloved  son,  the  submission  of  that  son, 
and  the  fact  of  vicarious  deliverance;  and  Christ,  in  Jno. 
8:56,  remarks:  "Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day,  he  saw 
it  and  was  glad." 

In  Jno.  3:14  Christ  represents  the  brazen  serpent  as  a 
type  "of  the  crucifixion. 

In  Matt.  12:40  Jonah  is  the  type  of  Christ's  burial. 

I.  Cor.  10:11,  Now  all  these  things  happened  unto  them  as  types, 
and   they  are   written   for  our  admonition. 

—134— 


The  rites  in  regard  to  the  sin-offering-,  the  rites  on  the 
great  day  of  atonement,  and  the  Passover  observances 
were  all  rich  in  typology.  Besides,  some  individual  expe- 
riences, particularly  of  the  patriarchs,  and  some  facts  of 
national  history  entered  into  the  typological  education 
and  preparation  for  the  great  fact  of  redemption. 

Section  II.    Prophecy. 

Prophecy  is  prefiguration  in  words,  as  type  is  prefig- 
uration  in  facts. 

Special  reference  to  the  prophecies  concerning  the 
coming  of  Christ  is  made  in  Chapter  IV,  Section  I,  para- 
graph I. 

From  the  first  promise,  "The  seed  of  the  woman  shall 
bruise  the  serpent's  head,"  till  the  announcement  of  John, 
"There  cometh  one  after  me,"  the  whole  scope  of  pre- 
dictive prophecy  is  educative  and  preparatory. 

Thus  the  world  was  growing  in  knowledge  and  expec- 
tation through  the  centuries,  and  by  the  history  and 
prophecy  of  Israel  the  Hebrew  religion  became  possessed 
of  a  most  lively  hope  of  speedy  consummation. 

Section  III.     The  Heathen  Religions. 

What  part  did  the  heathen  religions  play,  if  any,  in 
the  world's  preparation?  That  there  were  some  elements 
of  truth  in  them  we  may  readily  admit.  That  they  re- 
flected some  light  of  a  primitive  revelation  need  not  be 
denied.  That  they  were,  however,  most  of  all,  the  mighty 
efforts  of  the  human  spirit  to  answer  its  own  questions 
and  solve  its  own  problems  is  the  best  solution  to  be  given 
them. 

Every  smoking  altar,  every  bleeding  victim,  every 
ascetic  privation,  every  priestly  intervention  was  a  testi- 
mony to  the  guilt  of  sin  and  the  need  of  remission.  The 
whole  mighty  fabric  of  heathen  religion,  in  all  its  variety, 
awfulness,  and  degration  was  an  age-long  revelation  of 
the  need  of  a  Saviour  and  salvation.  And  the  hopeless- 
ness and  ineffectiveness  of  it  only  enhanced  the  testimony. 

Man  was  learning  the  bitter  lesson  of  apostasy  from 
God.  And  the  utter  failure  of  all  human  plans  and  efforts 
to  regenerate  the  human  race  showed  clearly  the  helpless- 
ness of  man  without  God  and  his  revelation.  The  hea- 
thenism of  the  world  was  thus  over-ruled  by  God  to  make 
preparation  for  the  coming  Redeemer.  And  when  the  ful- 
ness of  time  came,  the  Gentiles,  from  their  experiences  of 
failure  and  defeat,  showed  as  much  receptiveness  for 
Christianity  as  the  people  of  Israel,  if  not  more. 

—135— 


Section  IV.  The  conclusions  of  human  speculation 
and  philosophy. 

It  is  both  interesting-  and  instructive  to  observe  liow 
pagan  speculation  approaches  Jewish  and  Christian 
thought. 

(a)  Socrates,  469-339  B.  C. 

According  to  Socrates  man's  chief  end  is  happiness; 
but  such  happiness  as  is  to  be  found  in  well  doing  and 
obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  and  with  the  blessing  of 
heaven.  Socrates  attributes  to  knowledge  what  the  book 
of  Proverbs  does  to  wisdom.  Ignorance  is  sin;  knowledge 
is  virtue;  but  these  terms  are  used  in  an  ethical  sense, 
assuming  that  a  man  is  as  he  thinks.  Socrates  believed  in 
one  supreme  God,  creator  and  ruler  of  the  universe, 
omnipotent,  omniscient,  omnipresent,  wise,  just,  and  good. 
Socrates  believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  in  provi- 
dence, prayer,  and  the  reflex  or  self-retributive  nature 
of  sin. 

(b)  Plato,  427-347  B.  C. 

Plato's  idea  of  God  was  very  similar  to  the  Christian 
idea.  What  he  had  assimilated  from  Jewish  literature  and 
thought  is  uncertain;  but  many  of  the  early  Christian 
fathers  recognized  in  his  system  a  considerable  element  uf 
Christian  thought,  and  looked  upon  him  as  sustaining  a 
sort  of  propaedeutic  relation  to  the  Christian  dispensation. 

His  definition  of  God  reminds  us  of  the  Westminster 
Shorter  Catechism,  and  is  as  follows:  "God  is  the  begin- 
ning, middle,  and  end  of  all  things.  He  is  the  supreme 
mind  or  reason,  the  efficient  cause  of  all  things,  eternal, 
unchangeable,  all-knowing,  all-powerful,  all-pervading,  all- 
controlling,  just,  holy,  wise,  and  good;  the  absolutely 
perfect,  the  beginning  of  all  truth,  the  fountain  of  all  law 
and  justice,  the  source  of  all  order  and  beauty,  and  espe- 
cially the  cause  of  all  good." 

Plato  held  to  the  existence  of  subordinate  gods,  but 
these  were  the  children  and  ministers  of  the  one  Supreme. 
As  for  Atheism,  he  held  that  to  be  a  disease.  Plato  also 
believed  in  divine  government,  immortality,  future  re- 
wards and  punishments  and  much  that  approached 
Christian  thought. 

It  would  seem  that  Plato  realized  the  need  of  human 
redemption  to  save  the  individual  and  to  perfect  the  race; 
and  consequently  the  need  of  a  divine  teacher  and  revealer 
to  bring  in  a  better  than  any  existing  society  or  govern- 
ment. 

But  this  is  what  Plato's  system  could  not  supply.  It 
furnished     no    Savior,    no    atonement,     no    regenerating 

-136- 


agency,  no  justification  by  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
God  by  faith.  Besides  it  is  full  of  many  errors  amid  its 
excellence.  His  proposal  to  better  man  by  education, 
laws,  government,  community  of  goods  and  wives,  morti- 
fication of  the  body  (Manichaeism),  transmigration  of 
souls  etc.  falls  far  short  of  the  gospel  which  is  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation  to  all  who  believe. 

Thus  the  loftiest  efforts  of  human  philosophy  are  but 
the  groping  and  feeling  of  men  after  God  if  haply  they 
may  find  him.  And  yet,  as  the  Apostle  said,  "The  world 
by  wisdom  knew  not  God," — knew  indeed  something  of 
him  and  about  him,  but  still  far  short  of  the  experience  of 
the  Apostle  who  could  say,  "I  know  whom  I  have  be- 
lieved." 

(c)   Philo,  20  B.  C— 42  A.  D. 

Philo  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  and  he  presents  an 
example  of  Jewish  speculation  more  organically  antece- 
dent to  Christianity  than  pagan  philosophy.  Among  other 
subjects  Philo  wrote  largely  on  the  exegesis  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. This  puts  him  in  direct  line  as  antecedent  to 
Christian  doctrine.  What  interests  us  most  in  this  con- 
nection is  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos.  Between  God  and 
the  finite  imperfect  universe  is  a  world  of  intermediate 
beings.  At  the  head  of  all  the  graded  intermediaries  is  the 
Divine  Logos.  The  intermediaries  proceed  from  the 
Logos;  but  the  Logos  proceeds  from  God.  Through  him 
the  world  was  made  and  through  him  God  holds  to- 
gether, supports  and  directs  all  things.  How  much  this 
reminds  us  of  Jno.  1:3,  and  Col.  1:16-17. 

The  Logos  doctrine  of  Philo  has  been  called:  "The 
Jewish  prologue  of  Christianity."  The  approaches  to 
Christian  doctrine  on  the  part  of  Jewish  and  pagan  spec- 
ulation are  in  no  wise  derogatory  to  Christianity  as  a 
unique  and  supernatural  system.  They  are  rather  con- 
firmatory of  its  truth.  We  gladly  recognize  the  fact  that 
"the  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into 
the  world"  has  enabled  the  pagan  seeker  after  truth  to 
discover  the  being  of  God  and  the  nature  and  destiny  of 
man,  "for  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head." Thus  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion  are 
justified  at  the  bar  of  the  highest  intellectualism. 

And  we  are  profoundly  thankful  that  the  learned 
Jew,  browsing  among  the  facts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
came  so  nearly  discovering,  and  vindicating  by  that  al- 
most   discovery,    the    doctrine    of    the    Christian    Trinity, 

—137— 


which  the  modern  Jew  denies.  Slight  wonder,  indeed, 
if  the  roots  of  Christian  Trinitarianism  are  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  that  the  enemies  of  the  doctrine  so 
nearly  stumble  upon  the  fact. 

Every  approach  to  Christian  truth  on  the  part  of 
non-Christian  systems  only  vindicates  the  rationality  of 
Christianity,  and  prepares  the  way  of  the  Lord.  And 
when  these  groping"  hearts  and  minds  come  back  to  the 
true  religion  they  find  in  it  the  truth  they  sought. 

Section  V.  The  Awakening  of  Universal  Expecta- 
tion. 

It  has  been  frequently  conceded  that,  as  the  fulness 
of  time  drew  near,  there  was  a  general  expectation 
throughout  the  heathen  world  that  some  one  was  about  to 
come  with  new  light  on  the  problems,  and  new  help  for 
the  ills  of  the  human  race. 

This  expectation  grew  out  of  several  considerations: 

(a)  The  exceeding  degradation  of  human  society 
which  alarmed  men  as  to  the  extent  and  result  of  it. 

(b)  The  failure  of  the  heathen  religions  to  cure  the 
ills  of  the  world. 

(c)  The  fact  that  in  some  instances  religious  systems 
descended  from  corruption  to  perversion,  e.g.  fetishism 
was  a  low  descent  that  amounted  to  perversion  of  reli- 
gious ideas  and  practices.  The  nature  worship  too  might 
be  included  in  this  class,  where  religion  was  associated 
with  the  vilest  immorality. 

(d)  The  unanswered  longings  and  aspirations  of  the 
human  heart  and  mind;  and  the  natural  desire  for  clearer 
light  on  the  whence  and  why  and  whither  of  human  exist- 
ence. 

This  incurable  longing  is  expressed  in  the  words  put 
into  the  mouth  of  the  dying  Greek: — "Shall  we  meet 
again?"  "I  have  asked  that  question  of  the  hills  that  look 
eternal;  of  the  clear  streams  that  flow  on  forever;  of  the 
blue  sky  in  whose  azure  dome  my  raised  spirit  has  walked 
in  glory.  All  are  dumb.  But  as  I  look  upon  thy  living 
face,  and  see  the  love  that  mantles  in  its  blush,  I  know 
that  we  shall  meet  again,  Clemanthe." 

The  longing  for  immortality'  and  eternal  fellowship  is 
irrepressible,  and  imperishable;  and  everj^  serious  mind 
cries  out  for  reasonable  certainty.  In  this  respect  Christ 
is  well  described  as  "the  desire  of  the  nations."  The  doc- 
trines of  Christianity^  are  too  good  not  to  be  true;  and  they 
answer  the  cry  of  the  universal  human  heart.  The  world 
hoped  for  some  answer  to  the  universal  need  and  did  not 
hope  in  vain. 

-138- 


Section  VI.    A  Growing-  Revelation. 
This  was  another  element  of  the  pre-Christian  prep- 
aration, embracing',  among  others,  the  following  points: 

(a)  Growth  of  the  doctrine  of  God. 

(b)  Growth  of  the  knowledge  of  sin  and  its  need  of 
remission. 

(c)  Growth  in  the  forms  and  literature  of  devotion. 

(d)  Growth  of  the  Messianic  idea  and  hope. 

(e)  Growth  of  the  doctrines  of  a  future  life. 
Section  VII.     National  Specialties. 

(a)  The  Jews  developed  religious  ideas  and  expecta- 
tions. 

(b)  The  Greeks  developed  language  and  dialectics. 

(c)  The  Romans  developed  law  and  inter-racial  inter- 
course. The  latter  was  specially  promoted  by  commerce 
and  g-ood  roads. 


Chapter  IV.     The  Redeemer. 

Section  I.     The  Incarnation.     Catechism   21,  Who   is 
the  Redeemer?    Cat.  22.    How  become? 

1.     Christ  is  the  Messiah  which  was  to  come. 

The  seed  of  the  woman    (but  not  of  the  man).     Ful- 
filled in  the  virgin  birth. 
Abraham's  seed.     Gen.  22:18. 
Of  the  tribe  of  Judah.     Gen.  49:10. 
A  prophet   like   unto   Moses,   Deut.    18:15. 
The  son  of  David,   Is.   11  :i,   Jer.   23:5. 

Time   of   his   appearance,   While   second   temple   stood,    Hag.    2:9, 
Mai.   3:1.     End  of  seventy  weeks,   Dan.   9:25.1 
Place, — Bethlehem,  Micah  5:2. 
Preceded  by  a  forerunner.   Is.  40:3,  Mai.   3:1. 
Declared   to  be  God,   Is.   9:6.     Is.   7:14  Immanuel. 
Nature  of  his  ministry.  Is.  61:1-3,  Lk.  4:18-21. 
His   crucifixion,   Ps.   22. 
His  vicarious  sacrifice,  Is.   53. 

All  these  features  of  prophecy  are  fulfilled  in  Jesus 


IRefer  to  Dan.  9:24-27.  Command  to  build  and  restore  Jerusa- 
lem dated  457  B.  C.  See  Ezra  7:6-8.  70  weeks  or  heptads  till 
Messiah — 70x7 — 490  years. 

457  years  from  Ezra's  mission   to   i   A.D. 
26  years  till  Christ's  ministry. 
3Vi   years  duration   of  ministry. 
3^/4   years  the   cut-off   half  of  the  last   heptad. 
"In  the  half  of  the  week  sacrifice  to  cease." 


490  years — 70x7. 

—139— 


Christ  and  cannot  apply  to  any  other,  showing-  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Messiah  foretold. 

No  one  can  yet  arise  to  combine  this  prophecy  in  him- 
self for  the  records  are  lost  to  prove  his  claim. 

2.  Christ's  Pre-existence  is  involved  in  his  incarna- 
tion. 

John   i:i. 

John  8:38,  I  speak  that  which  I  have  seen  with  my  Father. 

John  8:42,  I  proceeded  forth  and  came  from  God. 

John  8:38,  Before  Abraham  was  I  am. 

Phil.   2:6,  Being-  in  the  form  of  God,  etc. 

The  Arians  believed  in  Christ's  pre-existence;  but  not 
in  his  Deity,  holding-  that  he  was  a  created  being  lower 
than  God,  higher  than  man. 

3.  The  incarnation  involves  Christ's  humiliation. 
Catechism   27. 

Phil.   2:6-8. 

4.  The  Virgin  Birth. 

(a)  The  faith  of  the  church. 

The  earliest  Roman  creed  is  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
dating  100-150.  The  Apostles  Creed  says: — conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  For  1500  years 
this  was  the  almost  undisputed  tradition  of  the  church. 

(b)  Denials. 

Tom  Paine  in  the  Age  of  Reason  attacked  the  doc- 
trine. 

Voltaire  and  the  Deists  did  the  same. 

The  rationalistic  schools  also  ranged  themselves 
against  the  Virgin  Birth.  Schleiermacher  the  Pantheistic 
mystic,  father  of  the  subjective  schools,  followed  by  the 
modern  New  Theology  and  the  Unitarians. 

In  1892  Prof.  Wustenburg  (German)  declined  to  assent 
to  the  Creed  because  it  contained  the  doctrine  of  the  Vir- 
g-in  Birth,  and  since  then  Germany,  Britain  and  America 
have  been  stirred  by  discussion. 

Evolution  was  supposed  to  eliminate  the  supernatural 
from  the  physical  world.  (Of  course  not  so).  The  ten- 
dency was  then  to  go  on  and  eliminate  all  the  supernat- 
ural from  the  Scriptures  and  religious  belief.  Evolution- 
ary schools  are  therefore  antagonistic  to  the  Virgin  Birth, 

Wellhausen  issued  editions  of  the  gospels  in  which  he 
omits  Matt.  1-2,  and  Lk.  1-2.  If  we  cut  and  slash  as  we 
please  we  can  eliminate  anything,  but  that  is  sheer  piracy. 

All  the  unmutilated  MSS.  and  versions  have  these 
chapters  and  it  is  contrarj^  to  all  manuscript  authority  to 
cut  them  out. 

—14 


Harnack  has  a  great  reputation  as  a  scholar.  Holds 
to  the  genuineness  of  Luke.  Good  thus  far.  But  Harnack 
acts  the  part  of  the  censor  on  the  chapter  of  the  birth  and 
deletes  its  plain  words. 

He  cuts  out  Lk.  1:27,  in  which  Mary  is  twice  called  a 
virgin. 

He  cuts  out  Lk.  1:34,  Mary's  question:  How  shall  this 
be? 

He  cuts  out  Lk.   1:35,  The  angel's  answer  to  Mary. 

Then  fitting"  the  parts  together  he  has  a  story  with  the 
supernatural  left  out.  But  this  is  arbitrary  and  unwar- 
ranted. 

There  might  be  an  excuse  for  such  a  process  if  these 
verses  were  omitted  from  the  majority  of  the  best  MSS., 
but  the  MSS.  are  against  him.  Even  when  this  is  done 
Matthew's  account  remains  and  it  is  not  easy  to  make  a 
consistent  story  out  of  Matthew  and  leave  out  the  super- 
natural. 

(c)   The  grounds  of  the  denial. 

Anti-supernaturalism  repudiates  all  miracle. 

Subjective  speculation  substituted  for  the  authority  of 
the  Scriptures. 

It  is  said  that  the  doctrine  was  no  part  of  the  teaching 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 

We  do  not  know  all  that  they  preached  and  taught. 

The  question  is  settled  by  the  records.  If  they  didn't 
preach  anything  about  it,  it  still  stands  on  the  testimony 
of  the  written  gospels. 

It  is  said  that  Mark  and  John  do  not  mention  it. 

Mark  does  not  treat  of  the  boyhood  of  Christ.  Begins 
with  public  ministry. 

John  deals  with  the  Deity  of  Christ,  not  with  his 
humanity.  Had  before  him  the  works  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  and  did  not  need  to  repeat. 

It  is  said  that  Paul  does  not  preach  it  and  therefore 
not  true. 

Silence  is  no  argument. 

Paul  does  say: — "born  of  a  woman." 

Paul  does  say: — "mystery  of  g-odliness.  Christ  born 
in  the  flesh." 

Paul  does  say: — "He  who  was  in  the  form  of  God, 
took  on  him  form  of  a  servant." 

Thus  Paul  teaches  the  incarnation,  and  "born  of  a 
woman"  may  refer  to  the  fact  of  the  virgin  birth. 

It  is  curious  about  these  critics  as  follows: 

What  Paul  DOES  say  they  don't  believe,  but  what  he 
does  NOT  say  they  believe  with  all  their  hearts. 

—141— 


What  Paul  does  say  has  no  force;  but  what  he  does 
not  say  is  proof  positive. 

(d)   Proof  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 

The  gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

These  books  are  the  genuine  writings  of  the  men 
whose  names  they  bear.  And  the  ist  and  2nd  chapters  are 
integral  portions  of  the  books.  All  manuscript  evidence 
shows  this. 

Matthew's  account  is  written  from  the  standpoint  of 
Joseph.  Shows  all  Joseph's  scruples  and  questionings  and 
fears,  and  how  these  were  met. 

Luke's  account  is  from  the  standpoint  of  Mary,  and 
shows  her  questionings,  and  astonishment,  and  wonder, 
and  visit  to  Elizabeth,  etc. 

We  naturallj^  inquire  whence  this  information  came. 

And  there  were  only  two  persons  in  all  the  world  who 
could  supply  it  and  these  were  Joseph  and  Mar3^ 

Here  then  we  have  in  Matthew  the  story  as  it  came 
from  Joseph's  side  of  the  house,  and  in  Luke  the  story  as 
it  came  from  Mary's  side  of  the  house. 

In  Matt.  1:16  we  have:  "Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary 
OF  WHOM  was  born  Jesus."  Which  person  is  the  antece- 
dent of  whom?  Answer,  Mary,  and  not  Joseph.  How  do 
we  know?  By  the  pronoun  in  the  original,  which  is  not 
masculine,  and  therefore  does  not  refer  to  Joseph;  not 
plural  and  therefore  does  not  refer  to  both  of  them  in 
common;  but  is  feminine  and  refers  to  Mary. 

An  old  Syriac  MS.  has  "Joseph  begat  Jesus." 

Referred  to  by  a  Unitarian  in  the  North  American  and 
answered  by  Prof.  Machen.  Doubtless  this  is  just  the 
mistake  of  a  copj^st  who  had  written  the  word  so  many 
times  in  the  chapter  that  he  wrote  it  once  too  often.  This 
one  MS.  would  have  little  weight  against  the  united  testi- 
mony of  scores  of  other  MSS.  and  versions. 

But  the  absolutely  crushing  reply  is  this,  that  that 
very  same  old  Syriac  manuscript  in  that  very  chapter 
gives  an  account  of  the  virgin  birth  just  as  we  have  it  in 
our  texts. 

The  loss  of  the  Virgin  Birth  would  not  necessarily 
destroy  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  deitj'.  That  is  abundantl}' 
proved  in  other  places.  The  virgin  birth  fits  all  that  we 
know  of  Christ  in  all  his  character  and  ministry,  and  is  a 
fitting  beginning  of  such  a  life. 

We  will  not  therefore  tear  it  from  our  Bibles  or  ex- 
punge it  from  our  creeds,  but  keep  on  repeating:  I  believe 
in  Jesus  Christ,  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of 
the  virgin  Mary. 

—142— 


5.     The  Incarnation  involves  also  Christ's  Exaltation. 
The  statement  of  the  doctrine   is  found  in  the  Cat- 
echism Question  28. 

This  doctrine  involves  the  following"  points: 

(a)  His  Resurrection. 

(b)  His  Ascension. 

(c)  His  Session  at  the  rig-ht  hand  of  God. 

(d)  His  coming'  to  judg"e  the  world  at  the  last  dscy. 

Section  II.    The  Person  of  Christ. 

1.  Statement  of  the  doctrine. 

Shorter  Catechism  22,  How  did  Christ,  being-  the  Son 
of  God,  become  man? 

Christ  the  Son  of  God  became  man  by  taking-  to  him- 
self a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul;  being-  conceived  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  womb  of  the  virg^in 
Mary  and  born  of  her  yet  without  sin. 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  8,  Sec.  2.  The  second  per- 
son in  the  Trinity,  being-  very  and  eternal  God,  of  one 
substance  and  equal  with  the  Father,  did — take  upon  him 
man's  nature,  with  all  the  essential  properties  and  common 
infirmities  thereof;  yet  without  sin.  So  that  two  whole 
and  distinct  natures,  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood  were 
inseparably  joined  tog-ether,  in  one  person,  without  con- 
version, composition,  or  confusion.  Which  person  is  ver}'- 
God  and  very  man,  yet  one  Christ  the  only  mediator. 

2.  Christ's  Deity. 

He  was  God;  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity. 
Proved  by: 

(a)  Christ's  claims. 

Matt.   16:17,   Accepts  Peter's  declaration. 

Matt.  26:64,  At  his  trial  declared  himself  the  Son  of  God,  and 
condemned. 

Jno.  8:38,  I  speak  that  which  I  have  seen  with  my  Father. 

Jno.  8:42,  I  proceeded   forth   and  came   from  God. 

Jno.   10:38,  I  and  my  Father  are  one. 

Jno.  14:9,  He  that  liath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father. 

Jno.   14:10,   I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  me. 

(b)  The  teaching-s  of  the  Apostles. 

Matt.  1:23,  Called  Immanuel. 

Matt.  16:16,  Peter  declares:  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God. 

Mk.   1:1,  The  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,   the  Son  of  God. 

Lk.  1:35,  The  one  that  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the 
Son   of  God. 

Jno.   1:1,  The  Word  was  God. 

Jno.   1:14,  The  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us. 

—143— 


Jno.  20:31,  These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God.  and  that  believing,  ye  might  have  life 
through   his  name. 

Phil.  2:6,  Being  in  the  form  of  God  and  thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  etc. 

Col.   1:16,  For  by  him  were  all  things  created. 

Col.  2:9,  For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily. 

(c)  Confession  of  others. 

Is.  9:6,  He  shall  be  called — The  Mighty  God,  The  everlasting 
Father. 

Matt.  27:54,  The  centurion  and  others:  Truly  this  was  the  Son 
of  God. 

Lk.  4:41,  And  demons  came  out  of  many: — Thou  art  Christ  the 
Son  of  God. 

(d)  Titles  applied  to  Christ. 

God.  Immanuel.  Alpha  and  Omeg^a.  King-  of  Kings, 
and  Lord  of  Lords. 

(e)  His  works. 

His  miracles,  his  resurrection,  supernatural  knowledge, 
his  lofty  doctrine. 

(f)  His  power  and  influence  in  the  world. 

(g)  Another  proof  of  Christ's  Deity  is  the  fact  that 
all  judgment  is  committed  to  the  Son. 

Jno.  5:22,  For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed 
all   judgment   to   the  Son. 

Acts  10:42,  It  is  he  who  hath  been  ordained  of  God  to  be  the 
judge  of  living  and  dead. 

Acts  17:31,  Because  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will 
judge  the  world  in  rigliteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  or- 
dained, whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  to  all  men  in  that  he  hath 
raised   him    from   the  dead. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  any  one  should  pass  upon  the 
destiny  of  all  men  but  he  who  is  omniscient  God. 

(h)  The  experiential  proof.  The  best  proof  is  the 
experience  of  divine  grace  that  regenerates  the  soul.  A 
candidate  for  the  ministry  being  asked  by  the  examiner 
how  he  knew  Christ  was  divine,  replied  with  emotion: 
"Why,  bless  you,  man,  he  saved  my  soul." 

3.     His  Humanity. 

(a)  Christ  had  a  human  body,  could  be  seen,  felt, 
handled. — L  John  1:1. 

He  was  born,  grew,  came  to  maturity,  appeared  in 
form  as  a  man,  ate,  drank,  thirsted,  slept,  was  weary,  died, 
was  buried,  rose  and  was  recognized  by  his  physical  char- 
acteristics. 

He  was  called:  The  man  Christ  Jesus,  I.  Tim.  2:5,  also 
The  Son  of  Man,  seed  of  the  woman,  son  of  David.  The 
genealogy  in  Matthew  traces  his  descent  from  David  and 
the  one  in  Luke  from  Adam. 

—144— 


Lk.  24:39.  Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet, — handle  me  and  see; 
for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye  see  me  have. 

Rom.  1:3, — who  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according-  to  the 
flesh. 

Heb.  2:14.  Forasmuch  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and 
blood  he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same. 

(b)  Jesus  Christ  also  possessed  a  human  soul;  called 
"a  reasonable  soul,"  a  rational  human  nature,  i.e.,  a  spirit 
with  its  powers  of  intellect,  feeling-,  will  and  conscience. 

He  loved,  sympathized,  wept,  exercised  the  feeling-s  of 
a  man,  thought,  talked,  willed,  chose  thus  and  so,  groaned 
in  spirit,  and  was  troubled. 

Heb.  2:16.  Verily  he  took  not  the  nature  of  angels  but  he  took 
on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham. 

Heb.  2:17,  In  all  things  it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like  unto 
his   brethren. 

Lk.  2:52,  And  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature  and  in 
favor,  etc. 

Matt.  26:38,  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful  even  unto  death. 

Mk.  13:32,  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  even 
the  angels,  neither  the  Son  etc.,  shows  some  things  not  known  to 
the  human  mind  of  Christ;  which  could  not  "be  true  of  his  divine 
nature. 

If  Jesus  Christ  did  not  have  a  human  soul  as  well  as  a 
human  body,  he  could  not  be  truly  man. 
4.     The  distinction  of  the  two  natures. 

(a)  The  word  "nature"  here  means  substance  with  its 
attributes.  The  two  natures  are  the  human  soul  with  its 
faculties  and  a  divine  substance  with  its  attributes. 

(b)  These  two  natures  stand  together  in  the  person  of 
Christ. 

(c)  The  Logos  or  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead 
does  not  take  the  place  of,  and  exclude  the  human  soul  of 
Jesus,  as  some  ancients  believed.  In  such  case  there  would 
be  no  true  humanity. 

There  is  a  complete  hunian  nature  and  a  complete 
divine  nature  in  Jesus  Christ. 

(d)  The  two  natures  are  not  mixed  or  confused  so  as  to 
make  a  third  something  neither  human  nor  divine;  as  an 
acid  and  alkali  unite  and  form  a  neutral  salt.  If  the  two 
natures  were  mingled  Christ  would  be  neither  truly  God 
nor  truly  man;  and  he  is  declared  to  be  both  God  and 
man. 

(e)  Each  nature  retains  its  attributes,  just  as  the  body 
and  soul  of  man  are  one  person  and  two  natures,  and  each 
nature  retains  its  peculiar  attributes.  The  body  does  not 
partake  of  the  attributes  of  the  soul,  nor  the  soul  partake 
of  the  attributes  of  the  body.  So  Christ's  humanity  does 
not  partake  of  the  attributes  of  divinity,  nor  his  divinity 
partake  of  the  attributes  of  his  humanity. 

—145— 


Christ's  human  mind  increased  in  wisdom;  but  his  di- 
vine mind  was  always  omniscient.  His  human  will  had 
only  human  power,  but  his  divine  will  was  omnipotent. 

5.     The  union  of  the  two  natures  in  one  person. 

(a)  In  the  person  of  Christ  there  is  a  complete  human 
nature,  body  and  soul,  and  a  complete  divine  nature,  with 
all  its  attributes. 

ih)   These  are  one  person  and  not  two. 

It  mig-ht  be  thought  that  the  human  nature  of  Jesus 
constituted  a  person  and  the  Logos  or  second  person  of 
the  trinity  constituted  a  person  and  therefore  there  were 
two  persons. 

But  the  human  nature  of  Jesus  was  never  a  separate 
person,  never  had  any  existence  apart  from  the  divine 
nature,  had  no  individual  subsistence.  The  Logos  united 
not  with  a  human  person.,  but  with  a  human  nature. 
Again  the  two  natures  never  address  each  other  nor  send 
each  other  as  is  the  case  with  the  persons  of  the  Trinity. 

Again  the  one  person  of  Christ  is  spoken  of  in  terms 
true  only  of  the  human  nature;  and  again  in  terms  true 
only  of  the  divine  nature;  and  still  again  in  terms  true  of 
both  natures,  but  always  as  one  person. 

e.g.  Things  said  of  the  person  true  of  the  divine  nature 
only: — 

"Before  i\braham  was  I  am"  true  of  the  divine  nature. 

"The  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world 
began." 

Things  said  of  the  person  true  of  the  human  nature 
only:— 

"I  thirst."     "My  soul  is  sorrowful  even  unto  death." 

"Crucified  the  Lord  of  glory" — Crucified  body  only. 

Of  the  acts  of  Christ  some  are  purely  human, — eating", 
drinking,  sleeping. 

Some  purely  divine, — creation,  preservation,  resurrec- 
tion. 

Some  theanthropic, — that  is,  in  which  both  natures 
concur, — 

The  work  of  redemption  is  theanthropic. 

God  spoke  to  us  by  his  Son, — theanthropic. 

He  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God, — theanthropic. 

This  linguistic  usage  shows  that  the  two  natures  are 
regarded  as  but  one  person. 

We  are  two  natures  in  one  person  and  sometimes  des- 
ignate ourselves  by  one  of  the  natures  as,  I  walk,  or  I 
think.    The  same  I  that  walks  is  the  I  that  thinks. 

— 146 — 


(c)  This  union  is  not  tlie  transmutation  of  one  sub- 
stance into  another. 

The  divine  nature  does  not  become  human  and  the 
human  nature  does  not  become  divine. 

The  text  John  1:14,  The  Word  became  flesh,  must  not 
be  pressed  to  mean  a  transmutation  or  transubstantiation 
of  the  divine  into  the  human.  This  would  take  away  the 
divinity.  If  the  divine  nature  should  take  on  the  limita- 
tions of  the  human  it  would  cease  to  be  divine. 

A  spirit  has  not  flesh  and  bones,  neither  becomes  flesh 
and  bones.  The  attributes  of  matter  are  the  opposite  of 
those  of  spirit  and  vice  versa.  We  must  understand  this 
text  in  the  light  of  what  we  know  from  other  sources  and 
passages.  Th,e  word  "became"  has  not  the  force  of  trans- 
mute; but  means,  came  to  pass,  occurred,  took  place.  Now 
what  occurred  or  came  to  pass?  Why  a  new  visible 
human  personality',  the  God-man, — the  human  mode  of 
existence  in  which  Christ  appeared.  This  came  into  exist- 
ence. 

John  further  expresses  the  Incarnation  by  saying", 
I.  John  1:2,  The  life  was  manifested.  I.  John  4:2,  Jesus  is 
the  Christ  come  IN  flesh.  He  was  in  the  flesh,  but  not 
identical  with  it. 

And  "flesh"  here  means  the  whole  human  nature  and 
not  merely  body. 

II.  Jno.  1:7.  Deceivers  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  IN 
the  flesh. 

I.   Tim.   3:16,   Manifested  in   the   flesh. 

These  passages  draw  a  distinction  between  the  Logos 
and  the  flesh  in  which  he  was  manifested. 

This  ought  to  dispose  of  any  transmutation  theory. 

When  the  Catechism  says:  "God  became  man"  it 
means  that  God  united  himself  with  man,  so  that  he 
appeared  as  a  man;  and  not  that  he  changed  himself  into 
a  man. 

(d)  In  the  theanthropic  person  there  is  a  union  and 
communion  of  natures  (koinonia  idiomatum) ;  but  not  a 
communication,  impartation,  or  transfer  of  the  attributes 
of  one  nature  to  the  other  (communicatio  idiomatum). 

The  humanity  does  not  impart  its  limitation  to  the 
divine  nature,  and  the  divine  nature  does  not  make  the 
humanity  infinite,  omnipresent,  omnipotent,  etc.  The  Lu- 
therans hold  the  communication  of  divine  attributes  to 
the  glorified  humanity  of  Christ  to  support  the  doctrine  of 
consubstantiation,  so  as  to  have  an  inexhaustible  body  of 
Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

But  we  think  that  if  divine  attributes  are  conferred  on 

—147— 


the  human  it  ceases  to  be  human,  and  if  human  attributes 
are  transferred  to  God  he  would  cease  to  be  God.  The 
human  does  not  become  divine  nor  the  divine  human. 
The  attributes  of  matter  cannot  be  transferred  to  spirit, 
nor  the  attributes  of  spirit  to  matter;  but  they  may  exist 
in  a  personal  union  as  is  the  case  with  our  bodies  and 
souls. 

But  there  is  a  union  and  communion  of  natures  in  the 
theanthropos  which  does  impart  knowledge  and  power 
without  making"  the  human  divine.  I  can  impart  know- 
ledge and  inspiration  to  you;  but  I  cannot  impart  the  sub- 
stance or  faculties  of  niy  mind. 

The  Jews  said:  How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  having 
never  learned? 

Christ's  knowledge  was  more  than  that  gained  in 
ordinary  ways.  The  human  Jesus  had  as  much  knowledge 
and  power  as  the  divine  nature  contributed  to  him;  but 
that  doubtless  limited  by  a  human  capability.  If  he  knew 
the  thoughts  of  men,  read  their  hearts,  it  was  the  divine 
nature  that  conveyed  such  knowledge  to  the  human  mind 
of  Christ,  and  the  human  was  the  medium  of  expression 
for  the  divine  mind. 

If  he  was  ignorant  of  the  day  of  judgment,  it  was 
because  the  divine  nature  had  not  disclosed  the  thing  to 
his  human  intelligence. 

When  Christ  was  a  babe  in  the  manger  his  divine 
nature  was  just  as  omnipotent  and  omniscient  as  ever  but 
did  not  manifest  itself  at  that  time.  Avoid  the  error  that 
the  divine  nature  came  upon  Christ  first  at  his  baptism. 
The  relation  of  the  human  mind  in  Christ  to  the  divine 
mind  was  similar  to  the  relation  of  a  prophet's  mind  to 
God.  As  the  prophet  Isaiah  could  know  no  more  of  the 
secrets  of  God  than  God  disclosed  to  him,  so  the  human 
mind  of  Christ  could  know  no  more  than  the  Logos  made 
known. 

General  Remark: — 

There  is  in  the  Godhead  three  persons  in  one  sub- 
stance. 

There  is  in  Jesus  Christ  three  substances,  human  bod3^ 
human  soul,  and  a  divine  nature. 

In  man  there  is  one  person  in  two  substances. 

In  Jesus  Christ  there  are  two  sets  of  faculties;  a 
human  mind,  feeling  and  will;  and  a  divine  mind,  affec- 
tion and  will;  and  these  two  sets  of  faculties  are  so  united 
as  to  constitute  but  one  person. 

—148— 


6.  Christ's  sinlessness  and  impeccability. 

(a)  Sinlessness  means  without  sin. 
Impeccability  means  not  conquerable  by  sin. 
One  is  expressed  by  "posse  non  peccare." 
The  other  by  "non  posse  peccare." 

(b)  Christ  is  universally  believed  to  be  sinless. 

(c)  All  are  not  agreed  as  to  his  impeccability. 
Some  say  that  temptation  implies   the  possibility  of 

sin  and  if  it  was  impossible  for  Christ  to  sin,  then  his 
temptation  was  unreal. 

But  it  is  answered  that  there  may  be  a  high  degree  of 
temptation  where  there  is  no  possibility  of  its  succeeding. 

Impeccability  means  not  that  temptation  could  not 
appeal  to  Christ,  but  that  it  could  not  conquer  him.  This 
was  due  to  the  support  of  his  divine  nature,  as  the  divine 
nature  would  be  involved  in  culpability  if  the  person 
yielded  to  sin. 

No  temptation  to  Christ  arose  out  of  a  sinful  nature 
as  is  true  of  man;  but  the  solicitation  addressed  to  his 
holy  nature  may  have  been  quite  as  powerful.  Heb.  4:15, 
Tenipted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are  yet  without  sin 
perhaps  means  that  he  was  tempted  as  we  are  except  by 
those  desires  that  arise  from  inward  evil. 

7.  Errors  as  to  the  Person  of  Christ. 

(a)  Denial  of  His  humanity. 

The  Gnostics  denied  Christ's  humanity  on  the  ground 
of  their  Manichaean  philosophy.  That  philosophy  taught 
that  evil  arises  from  matter.  Man  consists  of  a  spirit 
combined  with  a  material  body  and  bj^  this  union  with 
the  material  the  spirit  is  defiled. 

Salvation  therefore  consists  in  emancipation  from  the 
body.  To  effect  this  redemption  Christ  came  into  the 
world.  It  was  necessary  he  should  appear  as  a  man;  but 
as  he  could  not  be  connected  with  matter  and  retain  his 
spirituality  his  body  was  only  a  phantasm,  a  mere  appear- 
ance without  substance  or  reality.  He  therefore  was  not 
born  nor  did  he  suffer  and  die.  Some  admitted  he  had  a 
body  not  of  matter  but  some  ethereal  or  celestial  sub- 
stance. 

The  Docetae  were  a  Gnostic  sect  who  made  this  posi- 
tion famous. 

(b)  Denial  of  His  Divinity. 

The  Arians  held  that  God  was  one  eternal  person  and 
that  Christ  was  the  first  created  being,  by  whom  God 
created    the    world,    super-angelic,    became    incarnate    in 

—149— 


Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Nevertheless  he  was  a  creature  of  dif- 
ferent substance  from  God, — Heteroousios. 

The  Semi-Arians  held  that  the  absolute  self-existent 
God  was  one  person.  The  Son  was  a  Divine  Person,  not 
equal  with  the  Father,  not  identical  in  substance,  but 
similar, — Homoiousios. 

The  orthodox  of  that  day  said  that  Christ  was  of  the 
same  nature  with  the  Father, — Homoousios. 

Unitarians  now  deny  the  Deity  of  Christ.  They  con- 
sider Him  a  mere  man. 

(c)  The  Apollinarians  held  that  the  Logos  took  the 
place  of  the  human  soul;  so  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  human 
body  plus  a  Divine  Spirit. 

They  were  led  to  this  because  many  of  them  believed 
that  even  man's  soul  was  part  of  the  divine  substance. 
They  therefore  attacked  the  two  complete  natures  in 
Christ. 

(d)  The  Nestorians  denied  the  union  of  the  two  na- 
tures in  one  person.  They  insisted  on  the  distinction  of 
the  two  natures  till  they  practically  made  two  persons.  If 
there  are  two  natures  in  Christ  as  separate  as  two  shilling's 
why  then  there  must  be  a  human  person  that  says  I,  and 
a  divine  person  that  says  I. 

(e)  The  Eutychians  went  to  the  opposite  extreme  and 
said  there  was  only  one  nature  and  that  was  divine. 
Everything-  about  Christ  was  divine,  even  His  body  was 
divine,  it  was  the  Logos  that  was  born,  and  the  Logos 
that  suffered  and  died. 

Eutyches  said  that  there  were  two  natures  before  the 
union,  but  only  one  after  it.  The  two  natures  were  so 
united  as  to  become  one. 

(f)  The  Lutherans  hold  to  the  communication  of 
divine  attributes  to  the  human  nature,  so  that  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  is  Almighty,  Omniscient,  and  Omni- 
present both  as  to  soul  and  body. 

These  divine  attributes  of  the  human  nature  were 
either  concealed  on  earth  or  assumed  at  the  ascension. 

(g)  The  Doctrine  of  modern  Kenosis.  i.e.  emptying. 
Phil.  2:7. 

The  Logos  became  man  by  reducing  himself  to  the 
capacity  of  a  babe  and  then  increased  in  wisdom  and 
power  till  at  length  he  assumed  divine  nature.  Like  a 
great  gas  jet  reduced  to  a  spark  and  then  turned  up  to  full 
head.  This  makes  God  undeify  Himself,  makes  the  Re- 
deemer not  truly  man.  He  would  not  be  the  seed  of 
Abraham  if  he  had  no  human  soul. 

—150— 


(h)  The  Socinians  held  that  Christ  was  mere  man  in 
himself,  had  no  prior  existence  but  had  a  miraculous  birth, 
and  was  baptised  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  became  Divine 
and  is  to  be  worshipped. 

The  Unitarians  are  really  a  branch  of  the  Socinians. 

(i)  The  Russelites  like  the  Socinians  believe  that 
Christ  was  a  man  on  earth  but  became  God.  We  meet 
them  by  showing-  that  Christ  was  called  God  while  on 
earth  and  claimed  to  be  God  while  on. earth.  He  was 
called  Son  of  God  before  He  was  born. 

(j)   Pantheistic  Christology. 

Pantheism  recognizes  no  personal  extramundane  God. 
All  things  developed  out  of  an  impersonal  something  that 
always  existed.  God  comes  into  visible  form  in  the  ma- 
terial universe,  and  into  the  highest  form  in  the  intelli- 
gence and  consciousness  of  man. 

Incarnation  means  God  existing  in  the  human  race. 

Religion  consists  in  the  recognition  by  man  of  his 
oneness  or  identity  with  God.  He  who  has  the  greatest 
conviction  and  most  vivid  and  abiding  consciousness  of 
this  oneness  with  God  is  the  most  religious  man.  Jesus 
Christ  was  that  man.  He  was  the  ideal  man;  not  different 
in  his  origin  from  any  other  man  but  possessed  with  a 
greater  God  consciousness.  For  this  reason  he  is  called 
Divine  or  God. 

His  material  and  spiritual  substance  was  just  the  same 
as  that  of  any  other  man;  and  he  saves  by  bringing  to 
mankind  a  better  conception  of  their  oneness  with  God, 

His  death,  crucifixion,  resurrection  and  ascension  are 
matters  of  no  account.  He  does  not  save  by  His  death  and 
expiation;  but  by  influence  over  men,  in  making  them 
more  conscious  of  their  Godhood. 

Section  III.    His  Mediatorial  Offices. 

Cat.  23,  What  offices  does  Christ  execute  as  our 
Redeemer? 

1.  The  office  of  Prophet.  Cat.  24.  Christ  is  the 
revealer  of  God. 

(a)  In  the  theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(b)  In  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets. 

(c)  In  the  Incarnation,  with  its  direct  and  personal 
teachings,  e.g.  I  speak  that  which  I  have  seen. 

(d)  By  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostles  and  others  who 
wrote  the  Scriptures. 

—151— 


(e)  Christ  sent  the  Spirit  by  whom  inspiration  was 
g^iven,  hence  the  Cat.  says  "By  word  and  spirit." 

(f)  There  is  no  need  of  further  revelation.  Rev.  22:18, 
"If  any  one  shall  add." 

2.  The  office  of  a  Priest.    Cat.  25. 

(a)  What  is  a  Priest?  Heb.  5:1.  "Every  high  priest  is 
ordained  for  men  in  thing's  pertaining  to  God  that  he  may 
offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  men." 

Heb.  8:3.  "As  every  high  priest  is  ordained  to  offer  gifts  and 
sacrifices  therefore  it  is  needful  that  this  one  also  have  something 
to  offer." 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  priest  offered  expiatory 
sacrifices  on  the  ground  of  which  men's  sins  were  remitted. 
He  came  to  God  for  men,  presented  sacrifices  and  inter- 
ceded for  them.  He  was  thus  a  mediator  between  God 
and  man. 

The  Old  Testament  priesthood  was  a  type  of  Christ's 
priesthood. 

(b)  The  priesthood  was  fulfilled  in  Christ.  There  is 
now  no  priest  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  word. 

There  is  no  expiatory  sacrifice  now  to  be  offered. 
Christ  did  that  once  for  all. 

Christ  did  not  appoint  priests  to  offer  sacrifices  but  he 
did  appoint  teachers  and  preachers  to  minister  to  the 
church. 

Romanists  teach  that  salvation  can  be  obtained  only 
through  the  intervention  of  the  priest;  because  the  sacra- 
ments are  the  channels  of  grace  and  to  be  available  must 
be  administered  by  men  canonically  ordained.  Hence 
they  have  priests,  and  call  the  Lord's  Supper  an  atoning 
sacrifice,  a  real  expiation  of  sin,  in  which  Christ's  sacrifice 
is  repeated. 

(c)  The  important  feature  of  the  priestly  office  called 
the  Atonement  will  be  considered  under  a  special  head. 

(d)  Christ  makes  intercession  at  God's  throne  for  his 
people.  He  presents  his  plea  on  the  ground  of  his  atone- 
ment. 

To  make  the  Virgin  Mary  an  intercessor  between  man 
and  Christ  is  derogatory  to  Christ  and  attributes  undue 
prerogatives  to  a  human  being. 

3.  The  Office  of  a  King. 

(a)  God  as  Creator  was  and  is  sovereign  over  all  his 
creatures. 

(b)  By  the  fall  man  revolted  to  the  kingdom  of  Satan. 

(c)  God  re-established  his  kingdom  on  earth  by  a 
covenant  requiring  faith  in  a  Redeemer. 

—152— 


(d)  Entrance  into  this  kingdom  was  by  personal  ac- 
ceptance of  the  covenant. 

(e)  The  kingdom  assumed  more  and  more  organiza- 
tion as  time  went  on;  under  the  early  patriarchs,  Abraham, 
Moses  and  Christ. 

(f)  Christ  came  as  King.  The  kingdom  had  been  in 
the  world  since  Eden  but  the  King  was  not  visibly  present. 

(g)  Submission  to  the  king,  to  his  laws  and  rule,  is 
essential  to  citizenship  in  the  kingdom. 

(h)  The  kingdom  is  eternal,  spiritual,  both  visible  and 
invisible. 

(i)  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  word  "king- 
dom" in  the  Bible  refers  only  to  a  future  Millennial  rule; 
or  that  the  kingdom  was  removed  from  the  world  when 
Christ  ascended;  or  that  the  church  age  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  kingdom  age. 

(j)   Catechism  26  describes  Christ's  office  as  King. 


Chapter  V.    The  Atonement. 
Section  I.     The  importance  of  the  doctrine. 

1.  The  Atonement  is  the  central  fact  of  Christianity. 
Any  system  that  leaves  out  the  Atonement  is  not  Christi- 
anity. 

2.  This  was  the  subject  of  the  first  promise;  "The 
seed  of  the  woman,"  etc. 

3.  Christ  said:  "To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this 
purpose  came  I  into  the  world." 

4.  The  Atonement  is  that  on  which  man's  salvation 
depends.  Whoever  trifles  with  the  atonement  trifles  with 
his  own  and  the  world's  salvation. 

This  is  the  danger  of  Christian  Science.  It  repudiates 
the  atonement  by  the  suffering  and  death  of  Christ,  and 
therefore  repudiates  the  way  of  salvation. 

This  is  the  danger  of  Unitarianism  and  all  systems 
which  make  Christ  but  a  man,  and  deny  his  expiatory 
death. 

— T53— 


Section  II.    Terms  defined. 

To  understand  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  the 
terms  must  be  discriminating-ly  apprehended. 

1.  Atonement  is  not  sufficiently  defined  by  calHng-  it 
at-one-ment.  That  expresses  only  one  idea  in  the  doctrine 
— namely  the  feature  of  reconciliation.  The  atonement 
means  far  more  than  that. 

2.  The  word  guilt  expresses  two  thing's:  ist,  blame- 
worthiness, pollution,  moral  turpitude,  criminality;  2nd, 
liability  to  punishment  or  penalty. 

3.  Expiation  means  purging  out,  washing  away,  cov- 
ering, making  reparation  or  satisfaction;  especially  by 
suffering  a  penalty, — as  expiating  a  crime.  Paying  the 
penalty  implies  the  securing  of  remission. 

Expiation  is  a  very  important  word  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  atonement. 

4.  Propitiation  means  to  appease  or  render  favorable 
one  who  has  been  offended.  Guilt  is  expiated  and  God 
propitiated. 

5.  Vicarious  means  substitutionary;  a  vicar  is  a  sub- 
stitute or  one  who  takes  another's  place. 

6.  Reconciliation  means  bringing  into  harmony  or 
agreement. 

7.  Impute  means  to  set  to  one's  account. 

Rom.  2:26,  Shall  not  his  uncircumcision  be  counted  for  circum- 
cisiori?  f 

Rom.  4:3,  Abraham  believed  God  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for 
righteousness. 

Our  sins  were  imputed  to  Christ,  his  righteousness 
imputed  to  us. 

Thus  in  the  Atonement  a  vicarious  sacrifice  expiates 
guilt,  propitiates  God,  and  reconciles  God  and  man. 


Section  III.    The  two-fold  work  of  atonement. 
Christ  effected  the  atonement: — 

1.  B5"  obedience  to  the  law. 

2.  By  his  sufferings  and  death. 

By  his  obedience  Christ  fulfilled  the  law  expressed  in 
the  covenant  of  works,  which  Adam  failed  to  keep, 

—154— 


By  his  sufferings  and  death  he  paid  the  penalty  due 
for  sin. 

The  law  offered  life  for  obedience  and  threatened 
death  for  disobedience.  The  precept  of  the  law  as  well  as 
the  penalty  of  the  law  must  be  fulfilled.  Christ  met  all 
the  demands  of  the  law  both  precept  and  penalty.  Had 
he  failed  in  either,  no  atonement  would  have  been  made, 
and  no  redemption  effected. 

The  reality  of  the  expiatory  work  is  not  confined 
entirely  to  the  physical  sufferings  and  death,  or  what  is 
called  the  objective  side  of  the  atonement.  The  subjective 
side  must  have  its  weight. 

The  physical  suffering  is  not  more  important  than  the 
righteous  disposition  that  led  him  to  submit  to  it. 

The  spiritual  attitude  of  Christ  toward  the  work  of 
atonement  has  more  qualitative  value  than  the  physical 
sufferings  and  death. 

We  must  feel  that  the  atoning  work  was  wrought  by 
the  spirit  of  Christ  quite  as  much  as  by  his  bodily  sacri- 
fice, or  more. 

Distinguish  carefully  the  usages  of  the  terms  subject- 
ive and  objective  in  this  connection. 

Christ's  physical  experiences  are  called  objective,  and 
his  spiritual  experiences  subjective.  There  was  therefore 
a  subjective  and  an  objective  side  to  Christ's  work. 

But  the  atonement  as  a  whole  was  objective  to  man 
with  a  subjective  result  by  way  of  application. 

Those  theories  that  describe  the  atonement  as  merely 
subjective  constitute  one  of  the  worst  heresies  of  the  age, 
since  they  deny  the  vicarious  and  expiatory  aspects  of 
Christ's  work. 

Section  IV.  The  Atonement  Expresses  the  Total  Di- 
vine Nature. 

1.  There  can  be  no  antagonism  between  any  two  or 
more  of  God's  attributes.  Some  have  stressed  God's 
justice  to  the  exclusion  of  his  love,  and  some  have  stressed 
God's  love  till  justice  was  ruled  out. 

(a)  Anselm  made  satisfaction  necessai"y  for  the  honor 
of  God;  which  the  theologians  of  the  Reformation  modi- 
fied to  mean  the  justice  of  God,  or  the  requirements  of 
God's  law.  And  while  this  later  form  of  the  satisfaction 
theory  expresses  an  essential  fact,  it  must  be  duly  coupled 
with  the  love  of  God  as  the  moving  cause. 

"God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  Son." 

—155— 


"God  comniendeth  his  love  to  us  in  that  while  we 
were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  the  ung"odly." 

The  Atonement  is  the  supreme  expression  of  God's 
love;  and  it  is  the  characteristic  of  love  that  it  longs  to 
impart  itself  and  possess  its  object. 

To  leave  out  God's  love  is  to  leave  out  the  heart  of 
the  Atonement. 

(b)  On  the  other  hand,  the  moral  influence  advocates, 
from  Abelard  to  Horace  Bushnell,  have  stressed  God's  love 
to  the  exclusion  of  his  justice.  They  repudiate  substitu- 
tion, satisfaction,  expiation,  etc.  as  unnecessary  and  unde- 
sirable. Man  is  nioved  by  God's  love,  turns  to  God  in 
view  of  his  love;  and  atonement  is  nothing-  but  repentance. 

(c)  God's  nature  is  a  perfect  harmony,  and  every  act 
of  his  is  in  perfect  consistency  with  every  attribute  of 
that  nature. 

Any  view  of  the  Atonement  that  leaves  out  of  account 
any  attribute  of  his  nature  is  partial  and  to  that  extent 
misleading. 

Holiness  is  so  essential  to  his  nature  that  God  cannot 
look  upon  sin  with  approval;  and  justice  is  so  essential 
that  sin  cannot  go  unpunished.  Love  is  so  essential  that 
holiness  could  not  be  perfect  without  it,  and  holiness  in 
turn  is  so  necessary  to  love  that  love  would  be  capricious 
and  erratic  unless  guided  and  controlled  by  holiness. 

The  Atonement,  therefore,  is  not  the  expression  of  one 
attribute  of  God's  nature,  but  of  all. 

2.  Again  the  Atonement  is  equally  the  expression  of 
all  persons  of  the  Godhead.  All  views  that  place  Father 
and  Son  in  any  degree  of  opposition,  as  if  the  Father  had 
to  be  placated  at  the  expense  of  the  Son,  are  misleading 
and  mischievous  in  their  tendency. 

The  Son  is  equally  involved  with  the  Father  in  the 
expression  of  his  justice;  and  the  Father  is  equally  in- 
volved with  the  Son  in  the  expression  of  his  love  and 
sacrifice. 

The  Atonen:ient  expresses  the  entire  Godhead  with  all 
the  divine  attributes. 

Section  V.     The  main  features  of  the  Atonement. 

1.     It  was  in  one  aspect  sacrificial. 

(a)  Some  say  "We  are  not  saved  by  Christ's  death, 
but  by  His  life," — usually  said  by  Unitarians.  This  class 
set  up  Christ  as  an  example,  but  deny  the  efficacy  of  His 
death.     Thus  salvation  comes  as  the  reward  of  character 


and  works,  as  we  pattern  after  Christ;  but  everywhere  the 
Scriptures  stress  Christ's  death. 

(b)  Christ's  sacrifice  was  more  than  the  sacrifice  of  a 
martyr.  A  man  might  be  a  martyr  to  a  good  cause,  and 
his  example  very  praiseworthy;  but  that  sacrifice  would 
make  no  atonement  for  sin.  The  meaning  of  Christ's 
death  is  miles  deeper  than  mere  martyrdom. 

(c)  The  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  were  types  of 
Christ's  sacrifice,  and  whatever  they  meant,  Christ's  death 
must  also  mean.  As  they  were  sacrifices  for  sin,  so 
Christ's  death  was  a  sacrifice  for  sin. 

(d)  The  New  Testament  represents  Christ's  death  as  a 
sacrifice. 

John  1:29,  36.     Behold  the  Lamb  of  God. 

I.  Cor.  5:7.     For  even  Christ  our  Passover  is  sacrificed  for  us. 

Eph.  5:2.  Christ  hath  given  Himself  for  us,  an  offering  and  a 
sacrifice  to  God. 

Heb.  7:27.     This  He  did  once  when  He  offered  up  Himself. 

Heb.  9:14.  Offered  Himself  without  spot  to  God.  (This  is  said 
after  a  reference  to  Old  Testament  sacrifice.) 

Heb.  9:23.     Christ  a  better  sacrifice. 

Heb.  9:26.  Now  hath  He  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacri- 
fice  of   Himself. 

Heb.  10:12.  But  He,  after  He  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins 
forever,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God. 

Man^''  of  these  texts  being  s]:)ecifically  addressed  to 
Jewish  Christians,  could  bear  no  other  meaning  than  this, 
that  Christ  was  a  sacrifice  in  the  same  sense  as  the  sacri- 
ficial offerings  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation. 

2.     The  Atonement  was  expiatory. 

(a)  Statement:  In  the  atonement,  Christ  paid  the 
penalty  of  sin,  fulfilled  the  law.  satisfied  justice,  and  se- 
cured remission.  Catechism:  How  does  Christ  execute 
the  office  of  Priest?  Confession  of  Faith,  Heidelburg  Cat- 
echism No.  60,  Formula  of  Concord,  and  all  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  confessions  make  similar  statements. 

(b)  Proof  from  the  Old  Testament. 

The  sacrificial  rites  of  the  Old  Testament  show  how 
penalty  was  exacted,  and  remission  and  forgiveness  de- 
clared. 

Lev.  IV.  and  VI.  describe  the  sacrificial  atonement  for  sin. 

Lev.  1:4.  And  he  shall  put  his  hand  on  the  head  of  the  burnt 
offering,  and  it  shall  be  accepted  for  him  to  make  atonement  for 
him.  This  placing  of  the  hand  on  the  head  showed  the  transfer  of 
the  guilt  of  the  offerer  to  the  offering. 

Lev.  4:3-4.  The  sin  of  a  priest:  Shall  bring  bullock,  lay  hand 
on  head,  kill  the  bullock,  and  sprinkle  the  blood  before  the  Lord. 

Lev.  4:13-20.  Sin  of  whole  congregation:  bring  a  bullock,  lay 
hand  on  head,  kill,  and  sprinkle  blood.  Vs.  20:  And  the  priest  shall 
make  an  atonement  for  them  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  them. 

—157— 


Lev.  4:22.  When  a  ruler  hath  sinned:  bring  an  offering.  Vs. 
26:  And  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  as  concerning- 
his  sin,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him. 

Lev.  4:27.  If  any  one  of  common  people  sin  through  ignorance. 
Vs.  29:  Lay  his  hand  and  slay.  Vs.  31:  Priest  shall  make  atone- 
ment, and  it  shall  be  forgiven. 

See  also  Lev.  4:35,  Lev.  5:10,  Lev.  5:13,  Lev.  5:16,  Lev.  5:18, 
Lev.  6:7. 

All  show  sin  expiated  by  sacriiice  and  forg"iven. 

Lev.  16  gives  rites  of  Day  of  Atonement.  All  point  to  expia- 
tion and  removal  of  sin.  The  rites  on  the  grteat  Day  of  Atonement 
included  the  sprinkling  of  blood  on  the  mercy-seat,  showing  how 
the  blood  stood  between  the  law  and  the  sinner.  The  law  cursed 
the  transgressor,  but  the  blood  removed  the  curse. 

Lev.  16:8-10,  21,  22.  Two  goats,  one  sacrificed — one  called  scape- 
goat, led  away  to  the  wilderness.  Ohe  goat  sacrificed  to  show  the 
paying  of  the  penalty,  and  one  led  away  to  show  the  removal  of 
guilt. 

Lev.  17:11.  It  is  the  blood  that  maketh  an  atonement  for  the 
soul. 

II.  Chron.  29:23-24.  And  they  brought  forth  the  he-goats  for 
the  sin-offering  before  the  king  and  congregation,  and  they  laid 
their  hands  upon  them,  and  the  priests  killed  them  and  made 
reconciliation  with  their  blood  upon  the  altar,  to  make  an  atone- 
ment for  all  Israel. 

The  Passover  shows  how  all  were  delivered  who  were 
behind  the  blood. 

(c)   Proof  from  the  New  Testament. 

The  New  Testament  puts  Christ's  death  in  the  same 
lig"ht  as  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices. 

John  1:29.  "Behold!  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world." 

Matt.  26:28.  "For  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Covenant  which 
is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 

Rom.  5:9.  "Being  justified  by  his  blood  we  shall  be  saved  from 
wrath   through   him." 

Heb.  1:3.     "When  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins." 

Heb.  9:13-14.  "For  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  sanctifieth  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ 
purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  worship  the  living  God. 

Heb.  9:22.  "And  almost  all  things  arie  by  the  law  purged  with 
blood;   and  without   shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission." 

Heb.  9:26.  "But  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he 
appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself." 

Heb.  9:28.  "So  also  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of 
many." 

Heb.  10:4.  "For  it  is  not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
goats  should   take   away   sins." 

Heb.  10:9-10.  "Then  said  he,  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will  O  God. 
He  taketh  away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish  the  second.  By  the 
which  will  we  are  sanctified  thrlough  the  offering  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ  once   for  all." 

Heb.  10:12.  "But  he,  after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins 
forever,  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God." 

Heb.  10:14.  "Foi^  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  for  ever 
them   that   are  sanctified." 

-158- 


I.  John  1:7.  "The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us 
from    all    sin." 

Rev.  1:5.  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood." 

Rev.  7:14-15.  "These  have  come  up  out  of  great  tribulation,  and 
have  washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb.  Therefore  are  they  before  the  throne  of  God,  and  serve  him 
day  and  night  in  the  temple;  and  he  that  sitteth  on  the  throne  shall 
dwell  among  them." 

No  one  can  look  at  this  array  of  Scripture  teaching" 
and  fail  to  see  the  expiatory  nature  of  Christ's  death. 

3.     It  was  vicarious. 

The  vicarious  feature  of  the  atonement  is  so  essential 
that  no  unvicarious  theory,  in  any  adequate  wa^^  repre- 
sents the  facts  or  the  meaningr  of  the  atonement. 

(a)   Proofs  of  the  Old  Testament. 

All  those  passages  already  cited  which  describe  the 
laying"  of  hands  on  the  head  of  the  victim  teach  the  trans- 
fer of  guilt  to  the  victim  and  the  vicarious  nature  of  the 
offering. 

This  is  plainly  taught  in: 

Lev.  1:4.  "And  he  shall  put  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the 
burnt  offering  and  it  shall  be  accepted  for  him  to  make  atonement 
for  him." 

Lev.  16:21.  "And  Aaron  shall  lay  both  his  hands  upon  the  head 
of  the  live  goat  and  confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  and  all  their  transgressions  in  all  their  sins,  putting 
them  upon  the  head  of  the  goat,  and  shall  send  him  away  by  the 
hand  of  a  fit  man  into  the  wilderness." 

The  priest  confesses  over  the  head  of  the  scape  goat 
all  the  iniquities  and  transgressions  of  Israel. 

Lev.  16:22.  "And  the  goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniqui- 
ties unto  a  land  not  inhabited." 

This  shows  the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  the  offerer 
to  the  offering. 

The  name  by  which  the  victim  was  called:— viz.  sin 
offering",  or  guilt  offering  indicated  the  transfer  of  the  sin 
or  g"uilt  to  the  offering. 

Isa.  53:4-5.  "Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our 
sorrows;  yet  we  did  esteem  him  stricken,  smitten  of  God  and 
afflicted.  But  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgr'essions,  he  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities:  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon 
him;   and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed." 

Isa.  53:11.  "He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  shall  be 
satisfied:  by  his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant  justifi' 
many;   for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities." 

Isa.  53:12.  "Therefore  will  I  divide  him  a  portion  with  the 
great,  and  he  shall  divide  the  spoil  with  the  strong;  because  he  hath 
poured  out  his  soul  unto  death:  he  was  numbered  with  the  trans- 
gressors; and  he  bare  the  sin  of  many,  and  made  intercession  for 
the  transgressors." 

—159— 


(b)   Proof  from  the  New  Testament. 

Jno.  1:29,  Christ  is  called  the  Lamb  of  God.  If  the  Lamb  was  a 
substitute  in  the  Old  Testament  economy  the  inference  is  that 
Christ  was  such. 

Matt.  20:28,  Christ  came  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many,  the 
word  "for"  is  in  Greek  "anti"  which  always  means  "in  stead  of" 
therefore  as  a  substitute. 

Mk.  10:45,  same. 

11.  Cor.  5:15,  If  one  died  for  all  then  all  died.  The  preposition 
"for"  is  "huper"  which  sometimes  means  "in  behalf  of"  and  some- 
times denotes  substitution.  The  sense  in  this  place  requires  the 
idea  of  substitution. 

II.  Cor.  5:21,  He  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us;  plainly  the  "for" 
implies  substitution. 

Gal.  3:13,  Christ  has  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law 
having  been  made  a  curse  for  (huper)  us.  The  idea  is  plainly  one 
of  substitution. 

I.  Peter  3:18,  Christ  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  righteous  for 
(huper)    the    unrighteous.      See,    The    Atonement,    R.    W.    Dale,    pp. 

133-137-) 

Heb.  9:28,  says  he  bore  the  sins  of  many,  their  sins  were  laid 
on  him  as  the  sins  were  on  the  head  of  the  goat. 

I.  Pet.  2:24,  Who  himself  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the 
tree,  that  we  being  dead  to  sins  should  live  unto  righteousness  by 
whose  stripes  we  were  healed.  (For  an  extended  discussion  of  this 
passage  see  The  Atonement,  R.  W.  Dale,  pp.   131-138.) 

4.     It  satisfied  the  demands  of  justice  or  the  Law. 

The  law  of  God  cannot  be  annulled  neither  can  its 
demands  be  lowered.  How  should  man  be  just  with  God? 
is  the  cry  of  the  awakened  conscience.  But  how  shall 
God  be  just  and  justify  the  ungodly,  was  the  question  that 
divine  love  set  itself  to  answer. 

Love  says:  Save  the  sinner.  Justice  says:  Exact  the 
penalty.  Both  are  attributes  of  God.  How  then  shall  God 
be  just  and  justify  the  ungodly?  The  atonement  of  Christ 
is  the  answer. 

The  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ  satisfies  the  demands 
of  justice  and  answers  the  cry  of  divine  love,  and  as  well 
gives  the  awakened  conscience  a  sufficient  ground  of 
hope. 

Rom.  5:9,  Being  justified  by  his  blood  we  shall  be  saved  from 
wrath  through  him. 

Rom.  3:25,  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  a  propitiation  (mercy 
seat)  through  faith  in  his  blood  to  manifest  his  righteousness  in 
passing  over  sins. 

Rom.  3:26,  That  he  might  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  him  that 
believeth   in  Jesus. 

Rom.  Chap.  2-4,  argues  thus:  All  are  sinners.  All  are  con- 
demned by  the  law  for  sin.  God  effects  redemption  by  Christ. 
Redemption  is  received  by  faith. 

Rom.  7:4,  Ye  were  made  dead  to  the  law  through  the  body  of 
Christ.     Illustrated  by  a  wife  set  free  from  the  law. 

Rom.   8:1-2,   There   is  now  no  condemnation,   etc. 

— r6o — 


Gal.  2:16,  Man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  only 
by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Gal.  3:13,  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law 
being  made  a  curse  for  us. 

Gal.  4:4-5,  God  sent  forth  his  Son  to  redeem  them  that  were 
under  the  law. 

Rom.  10:4,  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth, 

11.  Cor.  5:21,  He  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin 
that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him. 

Phil.  3:9,  Not  having  thine  own  righteousness  but  the  righteous- 
ness which  is  of  God  by  faith. 

The  rite  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  showed  that  the  de- 
mands of  the  law  were  met  by  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice. 

The  present-day  New  Theology  demands  the  remission 
of  sin  without  atonement.  It  makes  light  of  sin  and 
abrogates  the  law. 

The  whole  teaching  of  the  Bible  in  the  rites  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  in  the  facts  and  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament  shows  that  a  substitute  always  bears  the  pen- 
alty when  sin  is  forgiven. 

Heb.  9:22,  Without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission. 

Dr.  Shedd  page  392  says:  "If  penalty  were  remitted 
by  sovereignty  merely,  without  any  judicial  ground  or 
reason  whatever: — if  it  were  inflicted  neither  upon  the 
sinner  nor  upon  his  substitute,  this  would  be  the 
ABOLITION  of  penalty,  not  the  remission  of  it." 

5.     It  was  Sufficient. 

(a)  Christ's  sufferings  were  not  equal  in  kind  and 
amount  to  all  that  which  a  lost  race  would  have  suffered. 

(b)  Neither  was  it  a  little  taken  for  much  (accepta- 
tione  gratuita).  God  could  not  accept  an  insignificant 
penalty  for  the  sins  of  the  race.  Else  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  goats  would  have  been  sufficient.  If  anything  less 
could  have  availed  then  Christ  need  not  have  come. 

This  doctrine  of  acceptatio  or  acceptilation  was  the 
view,  of  the  Remonstrants.^  and  of  Duns  Scotus  before 
them. 

l(The  Remonstrants  were  a  branch  of  the  Arminians  residing 
in  Holland.     Grotius  was  one  of  their  able   defenders.) 

The  Remonstrants  denied  that  Christ's  work  was  a 
satisfaction  of  justice  and  said  that  it  was  just  a  condition 
on  which  God  agreed  to  remit  sin.  They  said  that  the 
sacrifice  of  bulls  and  goats  was  no  equivalent  for  trans- 
gression but  God  saw  fit  to  make  that  a  ground  of  remis- 
sion and  so  also  with  Christ's  death. 

They  said,  the  holder  of  a  captive  can  take  what  he 
pleases  as  the  condition  of  deliverance  though  it  be  in  no 

—161— 


comparison  to  the  value  of  the  captive.  So  Christ  made 
no  real  satisfaction  for  sin  but  God  in  his  sovereignty  can 
take  it  as  such. 

But  this  is  open  to  the  objection  that  "the  sovereignty 
that  compels  justice  to  be  content  with  less  than  its  dues 
can  compel  it  to  be  content  with  nothing." — Shedd  II.  453. 

"If  a  government  has  power  and  authority  to  say  that 
fifty  cents  shall  go  for  a  dollar,  it  has  power  to  extinguish 
debts  altogether  and  to  say  that  nothing  shall  go  for  a 
dollar."- — vShedd  II.  p.  453. 

"The  principle  of  justice  surrendered  in  part  is  surren- 
dered altogether." 

(c)  Christ's  atonement  had  an  inherent  worth  that 
rendered  it  a  complete  satisfaction. 

(d)  Christ  being  a  person  of  infinite  worth  and  dig- 
nity made  an  atonement  of  infinite  value,  and  therefore 
sufficient  for  all  time  and  all  men.  Heb.  7:25,  Wherefore 
he  is  able  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost  who  come  unto 
God  by  him. 

6.     The  Atonement  is  propitiatory  and  reconciliatory. 

(a)  The  atonement  of  Christ  propitiates  God,  renders 
him  favorable  or  gracious  and  reconciliation  is  effected 
between  God  and  man. 

(b)  The  question  arises  whether  God  is  reconciled  to 
man,  or  man  to  God;  whether  the  atonement  effects  a 
change  in  God  toward  man,  or  in  man  toward  God. 

(c)  The  Scriptural  teaching  bearing  on  this  point  is 
expressed  thus: 

Rom.  5:1,  Being  justified  by  faith  we  have  peace  with  God. 

Rom.  5:9,  Being  now  justified  in  his  blood  we  shall  be  saved 
from   wrath    through   him. 

II.  Cor.  5:18,  God  hath  reconciled  us  to  himself  through  Christ 

11.  Cor.  5:19,  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto 
himself,   not   imputing   their  trespasses  unto   them. 

II.  Cor.  5:20,  We  pray  you  in  Christ's  stead,  be  ye  reconciled 
to  God. 

Col.  1:21,  And  you  who  were  once  alienated  and  enemies,  yet 
now  hath  he  reconciled. 

(d)  The  obvious  meaning  is  that  the  atonement  pri- 
marily affects  God's  relation  to  the  sinner;  bj^  satisfying 
his  justice,  removing  his  just  displeasure  against  man  as  a 
sinner,  and  affording  the  basis  of  grace  and  pardon. 

The  evident  purpose  of  an  ancient  sacrifice  was  to 
appease  the  deity  to  which  it  was  offered;  and  Christ's 
sacrifice  was  "to  save  -from  wrath"  and  open  the  way  for 
reconciliation. 

— 162 — 


Ultimately  the  change  affects  man;  and  by  the  grace 
of  God  leads  to  a  subjective  change  in  him  by  which  he  is 
reconciled  to  God. 

This  is  directly  ascribed  to  the  atonement. 

In  brief,  the  atonement  expiates  sin,  propitiates  God, 
and  reconciles  first  God  to  man,  and  second  man  to  God. 

Section  VI.    Objections  to  the  Atonement. 

The  Atonement  is  receiving-  a  fire  of  criticism  in  this 
day. 

It  is  one  of  the  doctrines  most  strenuously  attacked. 
A  certain  preacher  said  bluntly  in  a  recent  sermon:  "It  is 
nowhere  said  in  the  Scriptures  that  Christ  is  an  atonement 
for  sin." 

While  the  word  "atonement"  is  not  directly  applied  to 
Christ,  yet  he  is  called  "the  lamb  of  God,"  "a  ransom," 
"our  Passover,"  etc.  He  is  shown  to  be  our  substitute,  and 
to  have  purg:ed  our  sins,  and  to  have  reconciled  us  to  God. 
All  the  elements  included  in  the  work  of  atonement  are 
ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ. 

One  would  have  to  destroy  the  whole  Scriptures  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation  to  g^et  out  of  them  the  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement. 

A  few  of  the  objections  are  as  follows: 

1.  That  neither  guilt  nor  righteousness  can  be  trans- 
ferred from  one  to  another. 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  this  is  true  and  a  sense  in 
which  it  is  not  true.  Our  guilt  considered  as  moral  turpi- 
tude and  pollution  of  nature  and  character  was  not  trans- 
ferred to  Jesus  Christ;  but  guilt  in  the  sense  of  penalty  or 
liability  to  punishment  was  transferred. 

If  it  is  possible  for  one  man  to  pay  the  debt  of 
another,  or  become  a  substitute  for  another,  it  was  possi- 
ble for  Christ  to  pay  our  debt  and  to  be  our  substitute. 

2.  That  it  represents  God  as  unmerciful,  cruel,  vin- 
dictive, and  blood-thirsty  in  requiring"  a  sacrifice  of  a  life 
to  appease  his  wrath. 

(a)  It  was  an  act  of  mercj^  to  mankind  to  permit  a 
substitute. 

(b)  It  was  a  greater  act  of  mercy  that  God  not  only 
permitted  a  substitute  but  that  he  himself  provided  one, 
and  himself  became  that  substitute. 

(c)  Since  the  law  of  God  could  not  be  annulled  nor 
lowered  and  sin  could  not  go  unpunished,  God  himself  in 
the  person  of  his  Son  submitted  to  the  penalty  in  order  to 

-163- 


set  man  free.    That  was  mercy  in  the  superlative.    God  so 
loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  Only-begotten  Son. 

After  reading  John  3:16,  no  man  can  deny  God's 
mercy. 

3.     That  there  is  no  need  of  an  atonement. 

This  is  a  very  prevalent  objection  at  the  present  day. 

It  is  said  that  all  that  is  necessary  is  for  the  sinner  to 
repent  and  for  God  to  forgive  him  on  the  ground  of  his 
repentance. 

(a)  But  that  is  not  God's  view  of  the  matter.  God 
has  taught  us  something  very  different  in  his  word.  From 
end  to  end  the  Bible  teaches  that  salvation  is  only  by  a 
vicarious  sacrifice. 

It  is  God's  place  to  state  the  conditions  on  which  man 
may  be  saved.  It  is  man's  business  to  accept  the  condi- 
tions as  God  has  laid  them  down.  Man  is  not  yet  wiser 
than  God.  Since  God  has  provided  a  vicarious  sacrifice  it 
is  not  for  man  to  say  there  is  no  need  of  it.  That  is  inex- 
cusable presumption.  It  is  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com- 
mandments of  men. 

(b)  If  man  should  repent  and  obey  perfectly  there- 
after, that  would  be  but  his  duty  anyway  under  the  re- 
quirements of  God's  law;  but  could  not  atone  for  years  of 
transgression  before  repentance  occurred  and  obedience 
began.  The  law  that  has  been  broken  and  the  wrong  that 
has  been  done  requires  atonement. 

(c)  God  cannot  remit  sin  without  atonement  because 
he  has  threatened  to  punish  it,  and  his  veracity  is  at  stake. 
He  has  declared  that  the  wages  of  sin  is  death.  The  day 
thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  "How  shall 
God  be  just  and  justify  the  ungodly?" 

Athanasius  answered  this  objection  in  his  day.  "Sup- 
pose," he  says,  "that  God  should  merely  require  repentance 
in  order  to  salvation.  This  would  not  be  improper  in  itself 
did  it  not  conflict  with  the  veracity  of  God.  God  cannot 
be  untruthful  even  for  our  benefit.  Repentance  does  not 
satisfy  the  demands  of  truth  and  justice.  If  the  question 
pertained  solely  to  the  corruption  of  sin,  and  not  to  the 
guilt  and  ill  desert  of  it,  repentance  might  be  sufficient." 

One  could  wish  that  Athanasius  had  said  a  little  more 
on  this  line.  The  corruption  of  sin  is  only  one  side  of  it. 
Reformation  does  not  satisfy  the  whole  requirement  in 
regard  to  it.  The  guilt  and  ill  desert  of  sin  is  the  other 
side  of  it.  God's  perfect  law  and  God  as  a  perfect  gov- 
ernor cannot  ignore  either  aspect  of  sin.  In  his  provision 
for  man's   salvation   God   has   had   due  regard   for  every 

— 164 — 


aspect  of  sin  and  g'uilt.  To  ignore  the  guilt  and  deal  only 
with  the  pollution  of  sin  would  compromise  the  essential 
attributes  of  God.  Moreover  if  repentance  alone  is  neces- 
sary, the  whole  incarnation  is  useless,  and  Christ  has  come 
and  died  without  sufficient  reason. 

(d)  Sin  cannot  be  pardoned  without  atonement  be- 
cause God  is  the  moral  ruler  of  the  universe  and  cannot 
sacrifice  the  interests  of  moral  government.  Sin  is  not 
merely  a  private  matter.  It  concerns  the  government  of 
the  world.  Private  rights  may  be  relinquished  but  not 
public  welfare  nor  universal  laws.  The  objection,  if  true, 
would  lower  God's  attribute  of  righteousness  and  destroy 
regard  for  all  law. 

(e)  The  atonement  best  displays  God's  glory  and  con- 
serves man's  highest  good.  If  God  inexorably  demanded 
the  punishment  of  sin  and  refused  any  substitute  he  could 
not  display  his  mercj^  If  he  excused  sin  without  atone- 
ment he  could  not  display  his  holiness  and  justice. 

If  either  of  these  attributes  were  obscured  in  man's 
sight,  then  man  would  not  feel  constrained  to  be  better 
than  his  God. 

The  atonement  vindicates  every  attribute  of  God  and 
reveals  his  nature  to  man  for  his  admiration  and  emula- 
tion. 

4.  Another  objection  is  that  it  is  unjust  to  punish  the 
innocent  for  the  guilty.  This  objection,  as  most  of  the 
others,  proceeds  from  the  Unitarian  standpoint  in  making 
an  absolute  distinction  between  the  offering  and  the 
offerer. 

If  God  had  laid  the  penalty  on  some  innocent  being 
without  his  consent,  that  would  have  been  injustice;  but  if 
God  himself  assumed  the  penalty  it  was  no  injustice  to 
man,  and  no  injustice  to  him  who  voluntarily  assumed  it; 
but  rather  the  expression  of  divine  and  infinite  love. 

5.  If  sin  is  punished  it  cannot  be  forgiven,  and  if 
forgiven  it  cannot  be  punished. 

This  objection  is  illustrated  thus:  "If  a  murderer  is 
pardoned  he  cannot  be  hanged,  and  if  hanged  he  cannot 
be  pardoned." 

This  is  answered  thus:  "If  a  murderer  is  pardoned  the 
law  is  simply  set  aside  and  justice  not  exacted.  But  God's 
mercy  and  justice  are  both  better  exhibited  in  the  substi- 
tute who  bears  the  penalty  and  secures  the  remission." 
The  illustration  does  not  fit  the  case  because  in  God's 
government  mercy  and  justice  must  both  be  displayed. 

-165- 


6.  Another  objection  is  that  Christ  could  not  suffer 
the  penalty  of  sin  without  enduring  remorse  and  eternal 
death. 

Christ's  infinite  dignity  and  worth  gave  to  his  suffer- 
ings an  infinite  value  which  was  full  legal  equivalent  for 
the  sins  of  a  race;  and  more  than  sufficient  for  all  the 
penalty  due  to  the  whole  race,  for  all  the  suft'erings  of  the 
race  would  be  only  finite  at  most. 

7.  Atonement  leads  to  Anti-nomianism. 

That  means  that  if  Christ  satisfied  the  law  we  may  be 
negligent  of  it. 

It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  say  that  "faith  without 
works  is  dead." 

Section  VII.     Theories  of  the  Atonement. 

1.  Patristic  Theories. 

(a)  Satan  conquered  mankind  and  made  them  his 
slaves. 

Christ  conquered  Satan  and  delivered  man  from  bond- 
age. 

(b)  Satan  conquered  Adam  and  enslaved  his  posterit5^ 
To  deliver  man  Christ  offered  himself  as  a  ransom  to 
Satan  and  Satan  accepted  the  offer  but  Christ  broke  the 
bonds  of  Satan  because  there  was  no  sinfulness  in  Christ 
by  which  Satan  could  hold  him. 

(c)  Satan's  right  to.  man  rested  on  man's  sinfulness; 
but  when  Satan  accomplished  the  death  of  Christ  he  pre- 
sumed on  rights  that  were  not  his  and  as  a  penalty  for- 
feited his  claim  to  mankind. 

2.  The  Governmental  Theory. 

God  as  a  moral  governor  cannot  let  sin  go  unpun- 
ished. To  exhibit  his  hatred  of  sin  God  inflicted  its  pun- 
ishment on  Jesus  Christ.  It  was  designed  to  warn  the 
impenitent  that  they  cannot  escape. 

It  was  just  a  great  exhibition  of  God's  displeasure 
against  sin.  The  Atonement  was  didactic.  It  was  a  mere 
symbol. 

Dorner  (Volume  IV.  page  121)  says:  "The  reason  why 
Christ  is  the  most  potent  symbol  of  atonement  is  because 
he  is  more  than  a  symbol,  because  in  him  the  atonement 
has  become  present  reality. 

Were  his  life  and  suffering  not  operative,  but  mere 
symbol,  they  could  then  scarcely  signify  what  this  theory 
supposes.     How   far   is  such   suffering,   supposed   to  be   a 

—166— 


divinely  ordained  symbol,  from  suggesting  a  manifesta- 
tion of  divine  love,  unless  such  divinely  inflicted  suffering 
mediates  and  affects  forgiveness,  instead  of  merely  signi- 
fying or  promulgating  it." 

3.  The  Moral  Influence  Theory. 

,  This  theory  denies  the  expiatory  and  vicarious  nature 
of  Christ's  work  and  assigns  its  value  to  the  moral  effect 
produced  by  Christ's  teaching,  example  and  manifestation 
of  self-sacrificing  love. 

According  to  this  theory  Christ  is  not  an  expiatory 
sacrifice,  not  a  substitute  for  man,  paid  no  penalty,  made 
no  satisfaction  to  justice.  But  he  is  a  teacher,  an  example, 
and  a  manifestation  of  divine  love.  He  saves  not  by  his 
death  but  by  his  life.  He  produces  a  moral  effect  thereby 
on  the  hearts  and  minds  of  men, — hence  the  designation 
"Moral  Influence  Theory."  This  view  was  taught  by 
Horace  Bushnell  in  his  "Vicarious  Sacrifice,"  by  W.  New- 
ton Clarke,  "An  Outline  of  Christian  Theology,"  pp.  337- 
358.  It  characterizes  generally  the  systems  known  as 
"New  Theology." 

4.  The  Pantheistic  View  of  the  Atonement. 

Man  is  the  highest  form  of  God,  but  at  first  he  does 
not  know  it.  He  is  thus  at  variance  with  his  own  true 
nature.  When  he  comes  to  the  knowledge  of  his  unity 
with  God,  this  variance  is  taken  away.  This  is  called 
reconciliation.  He  now  knows  himself  to  be  one  with 
God.     This  is  atonement  on  its  subjective  side.  . 

But  what  has  Christ  to  do  with  this?  What  part  does 
he  play  in  effecting  the  atonement?  This  the  question  on 
the  objective  side. 

Christ's  place  in  this  view  was  this:  Christ  most  of 
all  men  realized  his  God-oneness.  In  him  the  God-con- 
sciousness was  perfect.  This  was  his  gospel.  By  his 
teaching,  his  example,  and  his  own  perfect  realization  of 
God-oneness  he  leads  others  into  that  realization  for  them- 
selves.    This  is  how  he  effects  the  atonement. 

Schleiermacher,  perhaps  not  so  radical  a  pantheist  as 
some  others,  enlarges  on  this  view. 

According  to  him  Christ  bore  our  sins  in  this  way: — 
Christ  saw  deeply  into  the  nature  of  sin;  observed  its 
prevalence;  and  the  misery  and  ruin  it  caused.  This  op- 
pressed him  and  wore  on  his  spirit,  so  that  he  suffered  with 
the  suffering  world,  and  bore  the  burden  of  the  world's  sin. 

This  suffering  of  the  world  stirred  Christ's  sympathy 
in  the  most  powerful  way.    His  sympathy  goes  out  to  man 

— 167 — 


and  leads  him  into  painful  struggle  for  human  betterment. 
This  is  Christ's  active  work  in  atonement. 

That  sympath}^  draws  us  into  fellowship  with  him  by 
faith  in  him,  to  the  effect  of  our  greater  holiness  and 
blessedness.  This  is  the  subjective  result  in  this  process  of 
atonement. 

The  effect  on  God  is  that  God  sees  us  in  this  union 
with  Christ,  and  is  well  pleased,  and  determines  to  let 
salvation  flow  to  us  through  Christ's  mediation,  and  for 
his  sake. 

Thus  Christ  becomes  our  substitute. 

See  Dorner  IV.  p.  49-53,  for  more  extensive  statement. 

5.     Remarks. 

In  all  these  theories  there  is  some  truth  but  all  are 
defective  and  incomplete.  We  must  recognize  the  truth 
and  reject  the  error. 

The  Patristic  theories  rightly  hold  to  deliverance  from 
the  power  of  Satan,  but  fail  to  express  the  other  important 
features  of  the  atonement. 

The  Governmental  theory  is  right  in  saying  that  the 
atonement  teaches  God's  displeasure  with  sin,  but  that  is 
only  one  point  in  many. 

The  Moral  theory  stresses  the  subjective  effect  of  the 
atonement  on  the  individual,  while  denying  the  main 
objective  facts. 

The  Pantheistic  view  ignores  entirely  every  objective 
and  historical  fact,  except  perhaps  the  exalted  character 
of  Christ. 

Schleiermacher's  brand  of  it  writes  the  atonement  in 
the  terms  of  experience  with  little  regard  for  the  Biblical 
record  or  an^^  external  authority". 

The  complete  answer  to  all  these  theories  is  the  exhi- 
bition of  the  true  nature  of  the  atonement  as  taught  in 
the  Scriptures. 

All  theories  of  the  atonement  are  efforts  in  the  right 
direction,  viz.  to  understand  and  express  its  meaning;  but 
quite  likely  any  or  all  of  them  fall  short  of  a  perfect 
expression.  It  takes  the  whole  Bible  to  explain  the 
atonement.  Our  widest  conceptions  may  touch  only  the 
fringe  of  its  meaning.  The  atonement  in  its  height  and 
depth  and  length  and  breadth  is  beyond  our  mental  and 
spiritual  limitations.  Before  the  cross  of  Calvary  the 
world  has  paused  and  gazed  and  wept  and  worshipped  in 
adoring  wonder,  and  well  it  may. 

However,  the  Scriptures  plainly  show  certain  features 
of  the  atonement  which  have  been  set  forth  above.    These, 

—168— 


for  convenience,  are  sometimes  called  the  satisfaction 
theory,  or  vicarious  theory;  though  we  may  question  the 
propriety  of  the  term  "theory."  Expiation,  substitution, 
etc.,  are  rather  FACTS  of  the  atonement  than  a  theory. 
Strictly  the  theory  pertains  to  the  questions:  how  the 
atonement  expiates  sin;  how  it  made  satisfaction;  to  what 
was  the  satisfaction  made;  and  how  did  it  affect  man? 

The  early  fathers  said  it  ransomed  man  from  Satan. 
The  governmental  theory  said  it  was  purely  didactic,  and 
its  effect  was  educational.  The  moral  influence  theory 
says  it  was  a  stimulating-  example.  Anselm  said  it  satis- 
fied God's  honor.  The  Reformers  that  it  satisfied  the 
justice  of  God  or  the  law  of  God. 

In  recognizing  the  truth  in  the  satisfaction  of  the 
divine  nature  in  the  atonement,  we  must  avoid  postu- 
lating an  antagonism  between  any  two  or  more  of  the 
divine  attributes,  as  if  God's  justice  and  holiness  were  in 
opposition  to  his  mercy  and  love,  or  that  one  set  of  attri- 
butes were  satisfied  at  the  expense  of  the  other.  God's 
nature  is  an  undisturbed  unity;  his  attributes  are  not  inde- 
pendent of  each  other  any  more  than  the  faculties  of  the 
human  soul.  There  is  love  in  his  justice  and  justice  in  his 
love.  The  whole  divine  being  expresses  himself  in  the 
exercise  of  any  attribute  as  the  whole  man  does  in  think- 
ing, feeling,  and  volition. 

The  atonement  is  a  satisfaction  to  God's  love  as  well 
as  to  his  justice.  The  transaction  is  the  harmonious 
blending  of  all  sides  of  the  divine  nature  in  united  exer- 
cise. 

Section  VIII.     The  Vicarious  versus  the  Moral  View. 

As  has  been  shown,  the  Scriptures  teach  a  sacrificial, 
vicarious,  expiatory,  objective  atonement.  The  only  the- 
ory, which,  in  this  age,  is  a  rival  or  opponent  of  this  is  the 
Moral  View. 

In  addition  to  the  proof  already  given,  another  line  of 
argument  shows  the  truth  of  the  Vicarious  View  and  the 
impossibility  of  fitting  the  Moral  View  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Scriptures. 

The  proof  of  an  objective,  sacrificial,  vicarious  atone- 
ment is  not  confined  merely  to  a  strict  interpretation  of 
bare  proof-texts,  valuable  as  they  are;  but  in  several 
epistles  the  whole  argument,  in  its  subject,  course,  and 
peculiar  turns,  depends  for  its  intelligibility  on  the  under- 
lying conception  of  an  objective,  vicarious  atonement. 

— 169 — 


1.  Argument  from  the  epistle  of  James. 

The  epistle  of  James  condemns  anti-nomianism. 

Let  us  ask  on  what  view  of  the  atonement  would 
anti-nomianism  arise  in  the  Christian  church.  Plainly  on 
the  ground  of  a  vicarious  atonement.  It  is  perfectly  con- 
ceivable how  a  man  might  excuse  his  own  direlictions  on 
the  ground  of  a  substituted  righteousness;  and  hence  anti- 
nomianism  would  result. 

But  such  a  situation  would  be  impossible  on  the 
ground  of  the  Moral  Theory.  Whatever  virtues  the  Moral 
Theory  lacks  it  certainly  possesses  the  virtue  of  making 
anti-nomianism  impossible.  If  men  are  justified  on  the 
ground  of  subjective  character  and  not  by  an  imputed 
righteousness,  anti-nomianism  could  find  no  ground  on 
which  to  stand. 

But  anti-nomianism  did  appear  in  the  early  church, 
and  men  assumed  that  they  could  be  justified  by  faith 
without  works.  James  was  obliged  to  resist  the  error  and 
to  declare  that  faith  without  works  is  dead. 

But  all  this  shows  that  the  vicarious  nature  of  the 
atonement  had  been  taught  in  the  early  church  by  the 
Apostles.  Such  a  view,  good  and  true  as  it  is,  would  be 
open  to  just  this  misconception  by  the  errorists,  as  the 
Moral  Theory  would  not.  Thus  by  the  errors  that  arose 
and  the  arguments  used  against  them  we  may  discover 
what  truth  lay  beneath. 

2.  Argument  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  Paul  states  the  funda- 
mental conception  of  Christianity-.  He  begins  by  showing 
the  guilt  of  all  mankind.  And  that  the  guilt  of  men 
exposes  them  to  the  wrath  and  judgments  of  God.  "For 
the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all 
ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men  who  hold  the 
truth  in  unrighteousness,"  i:i8.  He  brings  in  the  whole 
world  as  guilty  before  God,  and  proves  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles  that  they  are  all  under  sin.  "There  is  none 
righteous,  no  not  one,"  "All  the  world  is  guilty  before 
God"  and  "by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified." 

How  then?  "Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace 
through  the  REDEMPTION  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom 
God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  PROPITIATION"  through  faith 
in  his  blood  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission 
of  sins  that  are  past." 

— 170 — • 


From  the  doom  and  danger  of  God's  wrath  against  sin 
and  against  us  as  sinners  we  are  delivered  by  the  propitia- 
tion made  by  the  blood  and  therefore  thus  being  delivered 
we  have  peace,  not  merely  and  primarily  subjective  peace; 
but  the  line  of  logic  is  that  the  danger  from  God's  wrath 
has  passed  away,  and  he  is  at  peace  with  us;  "for  being 
now  justified  by  his  blood  we  are  saved  from  wrath 
through  him;"  "for  when  we  were  enemies  we  were  recon- 
ciled to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son." 

What  are  the  steps  here? 

First,  A  guilty  world. 

Second,  The  wrath  of  God  against  all  sin  and  sinners. 

Third,  Propitiation  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Fourth,  Deliverance  from  condemnation  and  peac'3 
with  God. 

Does  this  line  of  argument  indicate  that  Paul  believed 
in  a  sacrificial  and  vicarious  atonement,  or  in  the  viev/ 
known  as  the  Moral  Theory?  Would  this  have  been  Paul's 
argument  if  he  had  believed  in  the  Moral  Theory.  Cer- 
tainly not. 

If  Paul  had  held  to  the  theory  in  question  his  argu- 
ment would  have  run  thus: 

First,  A  world  morally  weak  rather  than  guilty. 

Second,  A  God  of  pity  and  love;  but  no  mention  of 
Avrath  against  sinners. 

Third,  An  inspiring  example  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
Christ;  but  no  propitiation  by  blood. 

Fourth,  A  justification  by  man's  own  works  and  char- 
acter excited  by  the  example  of  Christ. 

But  that  is  not  Paul's  argument.  The  whole  argument 
of  Paul  and  the  first  half  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans 
would  be  unintelligible  on  the  ground  of  the  Moral  The- 
ory. 

The  case  is  strengthened  greatly  when  we  further  con- 
sider the  slander  of  Paul's  enemies.  The  objection  which 
the  enemies  make  reveals  explicitly  the  view  which  Paul 
proclaimed. 

"As  we  be  slanderously  reported,  and  as  some  affirm  that  we 
say,  Let  us  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  whose  damnation  is  just." 
—3:18. 

Paul  ag-ain  refers  to  the  charge  in  6:1:— 'What  shall  we  say 
then?     Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound?" 

Paul  had  been  accused  of  preaching  a  gospel  that  did 
not  require  a  man  to  cease  from  sin;  that  is,  an  objective 
and  not  a  subjective  salvation.  Paul's  doctrine  was  open 
to  this  misconception.  How  easily  the  enemies  could 
make  this  charge  against  a  justification  based  on  a  vicar- 
ious atonement!     They  were  quick  to  make  the  thrust. 

—171— 


But  against  a  Moral  Theory  of  the  atonement,  against 
a  subjective  justification  no  such  charge  would  have  been 
made. 

From  such  a  standpoint  it  would  be  utterly  irrelevant 
to  raise  the  question:  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace 
may  abound? 

"Some  affirm  that  we  say:  'Let  us  do  evil  that  good 
may  come.'  "  The  charge  was  a  slander;  but  if  Paul  had 
represented  the  work  of  Christ,  not  as  a  sacrificial  and 
vicarious  one,  but  as  an  inspiring  example,  luring  men 
and  exciting  them  to  loftiness  and  holiness  of  life,  the 
slander  would  have  been  impossible. 

The  objection  of  Paul's  enemies  shows  what  he 
taught,  viz.  a  vicarious  atonement.  And  furthermore  it  is 
beyond  dispute  that  Paul's  whole  argument  would  be 
meaningless  on  the  basis  of  the  Moral  Theory. 

3.     Argument  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 

The  epistle  to  the  Galatians  reveals  the  fact  that  the 
Judaizers  had  tempted  these  unstable  Christians  to  revert 
to  the  law  as  a  requisite  to  salvation.  Paul  in  this  epistle 
endeavors  to  show  how  irrational  it  was  for  the  Gentiles 
to  have  recourse  to  the  Jewish  law  that  could  not  save  the 
Jews  themselves. 

The  law  instead  of  saving  condemned  all  who  trans- 
gressed. 

"Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  that  are 
written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them."     Gal.  3:10. 

The  law  subjected  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike  to  a  curse. 

But  a  promise  had  been  given  to  Abraham  that  in  him  all 
nations  should  be  blessed,     Gal.  3:8. 

How  then  shall  the  promises  to  Abraham  be  fulfilled? 
How  shall  they  be  blessed  whom  the  law  curses? 

This  question  the  Jew  must  face  as  well  as  the 
Gentile. 

How  does  Paul  answer  that  question? 

Here  Paul  brings  in  the  death  of  Christ. 

"Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made 
a  curse  for' us." — Gal.  3:13.  "That  the  Blessing  of  Abraham  might 
come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ." — Gal.  3:14. 

Paul's  argument  is  this:  The  law  pronounces  a  curse 
on  every  man,  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike.  Christ  has  can- 
celed that  curse  for  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  who  believe  on 
him.  How  foolish  for  the  Gentile  to  put  himself  under 
the  law  that  cursed  him,  in  lieu  of  the  redemption  that 
Christ  achieved  by  canceling  that  curse! 

Now  ask:  Would  this  have  been  Paul's  argument  if 
he  had  not  believed  in  an  objective  atonement? 

—172— 


Can  we  remove  from  this  passage  the  idea  that  Christ 
endured  the  penalty  or  the  curse  of  the  law?  If  Christ 
bore  no  penalty  in  his  sacrifice  on  the  cross  what  becomes 
of  Paul's  argument  in  Galatians? 

If  Paul  had  held  the  modern  Moral  Theory  he  certain- 
ly would  have  encouraged  the  Galatians  to  repudiate  all 
faith  in  a  vicarious  enduring  of  the  curse  and  trust  for 
justification  to  obedience  to  the  law.  But  all  Paul's  argu- 
ment and  appeal  is  based  on  the  fact  of  Christ's  enduring 
the  curse  and  redeeming  man  therefrom. 

In  addition  to  the  proof  based  upon  the  epistles  we 
continue  the  argument  with  the  following  considerations. 

4.  All  the  virtues  claimed  by  the  Moral  Influence 
Theory  are  included  in  the  orthodox  doctrine,  and  more. 

The  love  of  God  is  as  much  manifest  in  sending  his 
Son  to  die  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice  as  it  would  be  if 
Christ  were  only  a  heroic  and  inspiring  example. 

The  moral  effect  on  the  hearts  of  men  in  inciting  them 
to  faith  and  emulation  is  just  as  great  on  the  orthodox 
view  as  on  the  other. 

Every  advantage  and  value  that  the  Moral  Influence 
advocates  can  claim  are  duplicated  in  the  expiatory  view, 
and  far  more. 

5.  The  Moral  Influence  doctrine  is  efficacious  only 
where  it  is  known  and  understood.  It  could  have  no  pos- 
sible relevancy  to  infants,  incapables  and  heathen.  It  is 
only  available  to  those  who  understand  it.  It  is  therefore 
limited  in  its  application,  and  is  frequently  coupled  with 
a  doctrine  of  second  probation  to  supplement  its  defi- 
ciencies. 

6.  The  Moral  Influence  Theory  substitutes  one  effect 
of  the  atonement  for  the  atonement  itself.  The  end  to  be 
attained  is  the  remission  of  sin  and  the  eventual  sanctifi- 
cation  of  the  believer;  but  to  the  question,  how  this  is  to 
be  effected,  the  answer  is,  by  the  atonement  in  its  making 
and  its  application.  The  result  is  one  thing,  the  cause 
another  thing. 

7.  Horace  Bushnell  in  his  "Vicarious  Sacrifice"  has 
made  himself  the  most  illustrious  advocate  of  the  Moral 
Influence  Theory  in  America.  But  in  a  subsequent  work, 
"Forgiveness  and  Law,"  he  modifies  considerably  his  for- 
mer position,  and  admits  much  that  he  had  previously 
denied. 

It  is  also  stated  on  respectable  authority  that  Dr. 
Bushnell  confessed  on  his  dying  bed:  "I  fear  what  I  have 

—173— 


written  and  said  upon  the  moral  idea  of  the  atonement  is 
misleading  and  will  do  much  harm."  And  further  that  he 
exclaimed  in  view  of  death:  "O  Lord  Jesus,  I  trust  for 
mercy  onlj'  in  the  shed  blood  that  thou  didst  offer  on 
Calvary." 

8.  The  Moral  Influence  Theory'  g'ives  no  sufficient 
explanation  of  the  sacrificial  rites  of  the  Old  Testament, 
nor  of  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  referring  to 
the  death  of  Christ. 

9.  The  Moral  Influence  Theorj'  is  a  theory  of  sub- 
jective atonement;  but  the  whole  value  of  it  must  rest 
upon  the  objective  facts  of  Christ's  historical  work.  Take 
awaj^  the  objective  facts  of  the  atonement  and  the  sub- 
jective value  goes  also.  All  the  value  that  a  subjective 
atonement  has  is  due  to  the  objective  reality. 

10.  The  convictions  of  the  universal  human  mind 
conclude  that  God's  will  is  identical  with  the  eternal  law 
of  righteousness,  and  that  righteousness  must  be  expressed 
in  the  divine  acts.  God's  nature  and  man's  nature  as  well 
declare  that  sin  deserves  punishment.  God  must  punish 
sin,  or  God  and  the  law  of  righteousness  are  at  odds,  and 
the  Avhole  moral  universe  in  chaos.  If  God  does  not 
assert  his  righteousness  b}^  punishing  sin  in  the  offender 
he  must  assert  it  in  some  way  that  will  vindicate  his  holy 
nature  in  the  eyes. of  the  moral  universe. 

In  the  atonement  God  mercifully  spares  the  offender 
and  at  the  same  time  vindicates  and  manifests  his  right- 
eousness in  a  far  more  glorious  manner  than  the  punish- 
ment of  the  offender  could  have  done. 

The  sacrificial  and  expiatory  nature  of  the  atonement 
is  demanded  by  the  nature  of  God  and  the  eternal  law  of 
righteousness. 


Section  IX.    Eternal  Atonement. 

Is  the  atonement  merely  historical,  or  does  it  express 
eternal  relations?  Is  it  something  wrought  out  in  a  few 
brief  years  and  culminating  in  a  few  brief  hours  some 
nineteen  hundred  years  ago?  Is  the  whole  idea  of  the 
atonement  comprised  in  that  fulfilling  of  precept  and 
bearing  of  penalty-  effected  in  Christ's  incarnation,  obedi- 
ence and  death?  Or  is  the  atonement  as  eternal  as  the 
attributes  of  the  Godhead,  and  based  upon  an  essential, 
or  substantial,  or  causal  relation  of  the  Deity  to  the 
human  race? 

—174— 


1.  Dr.  Roswell  D.  Hitchcock  left  a  volume  of  ser- 
mons entitled  "Eternal  Atonement."  In  them  he  states 
his  view  of  eternal  atonement  in  these  words:  "His  agony 
over  sin  is  eternal.  This  agony  of  God  over  human  sin  is 
'the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.'  God 
himself  atones;  to  himself  atones;  and  so  atonement  is 
both  eternal  and  divine." 

"This  I  may  believe  and  this  I  must  believe,  that  the 
atonement  in  which  I  cast  the  anchor  of  my  hope  is  not 
temporal  but  eternal.  God  within  himself,  inflicted  that 
upon  himself,  and  suffered  that  from  himelf,  into  which 
angels  have  never  looked,  and  never  can." 

A  much  more  advanced  position  is  taken  by  other 
theologians. 

2.  R.  W.  Dale,  in  his  book  "The  Atonement,"  Lecture 
X.,  assumes  that  if  the  sacrificial  and  vicarious  view  of 
the  atonement  can  be  shown  to  rest  upon  the  original 
relation  of  Christ  to  the  human  race,  it  will  have  a  more 
secure  foundation,  and  in  fact  without  such  basis  it  may 
be  difficult  to  maintain  the  doctrine. 

This  particular  view  of  the  atonement  has  not  been 
generally  apprehended  by  the  church,  and  is  not  alto- 
gether easy  of  comprehension.  Whether  it  is  more  scrip- 
tural or  more  speculative,  its  advocates  seek,  at  least,  to 
anchor  it  to  revelation. 

Certain  Scriptural  expressions  are  laid  as  a  basis. 

Jno.  1:2-3,  All  things  were  made  by,  or  through,  him  and  with- 
out him  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made.  In  him  was  life 
and   the  life  was   the  light  of  men. 

Heb.  1:2-3,  By,  or  through,  whom  he  made  the  worlds,  wiio 
being  the  brightness  of  his  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his 
person,  and  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power  etc. 

Col.  1:15-17,  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first- 
born of  every  creature,  or  all  creation;  for  by,  or  in,  him  were  all 
things  created — in  heaven — and  in  earth,— ^and  by  him  all  things 
consist,  or  hold  together. 

In  these  passages  we  have  the  Logos  as  creator  and 
upholder,  or  the  agency  through  which  the  divine  power 
exerts  its  causal  efficiency. 

"The  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  all 
creation"  suggests  that  the  Logos  has  a  dual  function  in 
the  relationship  of  Deity  to  the  creation,  that  he  stands 
officially  between  the  two;  that  as  in  time  he  represents 
the  perfection  of  the  Godhead  to  the  creature,  so  from 
eternity  he  represents  to  God  the  ideal  perfection  of  all 
created  things.  In  other  words  Christ,  as  "the  firstborn  of 
every  creature,"  is  the  prophecy  of  creation,  and,  as  "the 
image  of  the  invisible  God,"  he  functions  the  perfections 
of  the  Deity  to  the  intelligent  universe. 

—175— 


From  this  dual  function  in  the  divine  economy  it  is 
inferred  that  the  relation  of  the  Logos  to  the  Godhead 
and  the  relation  of  the  Logos  to  the  universe,  if  not  of  the 
same  nature,  are  at  least  equally  vital.  A  vital  relation 
between  Christ  and  the  human  race  thus  becomes  the  basis 
of  the  atonement.  This  vital  relation  is  supported  by  such 
expressions  as: — "In  him  was  life," — the  life  of  the  human 
race, — ^"and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men," — that  we  died 
in  him,  that  we  are  risen  in  him, — "abide  in  me," — "apart 
from  me  ye  can  do  nothing," — "Christ  liveth  in  me," — the 
church  is  the  "body  of  Christ," — and  "the  fulness  of  him 
that  filleth  all  in  all."     Etc.,  etc. 

In  tliis  view  Christ  is  regarded  as  a  representative  of 
the  race,  but  not  a  mere  representative  in  the  usual  sense, 
not  a  representative  by  imputation,  nor  by  a  legal  relation 
assumed  for  an  exigency;  but  by  virtue  of  a  real  union 
between  the  life  of  Christ  and  the  life  of  the  race. 

Christ  is  regarded  as  the  ground  and  root  of  the  uni- 
verse, and  apart  from  him  it  could  not  continue  to  exist. 
And  as  head  of  the  human  race  it  is  said:  "Christ  is,  in 
very  truth,  by  the  original  law  of  the  universe,  the  repre- 
sentative of  mankind." 

On  this  original  and  vital  relation  the  atonement  is 
founded.  He  is  the  life  of  humanity.  He  brings  the  race 
into  the  same  relation  to  the  Father  that  he  himself 
enjoys.  And  this  original  relationship  constitutes  the 
reason  why  he  should  become  a  sacrifice  and  propitiation 
for  mankind.  He  is  not  a  mere  substitute  by  "legal  fic- 
tion," but  represents  the  race  because  he  is  the  life  of  the 
race. 

Accordingly  if  Christ  must  always  represent  the  ideal 
relation  of  man  to  God,  then,  when  sin  came  into  the 
race,  he  could  only  continue  to  express  such  a  relation  by 
bearing  the  penalty  which  sin  deserved.  Hence  the  death 
of  Christ  restores  the  actual  representation  and  we  are 
permitted  to  retain  or  recover  our  original  and  ideal  rela- 
tion to  God  through  him.  So  it  may  be  said  that  what 
Christ  did  to  restore  this  relation  is  the  ground  on  which 
men's  sins  are  remitted. 

3.  A.  H.  Strong,  in  his  Dogmatic  Theolgy,  presents  a 
view  similar  to  that  of  Dr.  Dale,  though  somewhat  more 
advanced. 

Dr.  Strong's  fundamental  position  is  that  Christ  as 
immanent  God  is  the  life  of  humanity,  and  therefore  re- 
sponsible for  human  sin,  and  under  obligation  to  suffer  its 
penalty  in  the  redemption  of  the  race. 

— 176 — 


The  pivot  of  the  whole  position  is  the  union  of  Christ 
with  the  race,  not  in  the  assumption  of  humanity  in  the 
incarnation,  but  in  his  original  relation  to  the  race. 

It  is  one  thing"  to  rest  the  responsibility  and  obligation 
of  the  incarnate  Logos,  for  the  expiation  of  sin,  on  his 
union  with  the  race  in  the  incarnation;  it  is  another  thing 
to  rest  that  responsibility  and  obligation  on  a  vital 
organic  union  with  the  race  in  its  creation.  This  point 
needs  to  be  kept  clearly  in  mind. 

The  following  quotations  will  set  forth  the  position: 

"Christ,  as  the  Logos,  as  the  immanent  God,  is  the  life 
of  humanity,  laden  with  responsibility  for  human  sin, 
while  yet  he  personally  knows  no  sin.  Of  this  race-respon- 
sibility, and  race-guilt  which  Christ  assumed  and  for 
which  he  suffered,  so  soon  as  man  had  sinned,  Christ's 
obedience  and  suffering  in  the  flesh  were  the  visible  reflec- 
tion and  revelation.  Only  in  Christ's  organic  union  with 
the  race  can  we  find  the  vital  relation  which  will  make 
his  vicarious  suft'erings  either  possible  or  just." — Dogmatic 
Theology,  page  754. 

"If  Christ's  union  with  the  race  be  one  which  begins 
with  creation,  and  antedates  the  fall, — substitution,  repre- 
sentation, propitiation,  reconciliation,  satisfaction  are  only 
different  aspects  of  the  work  which  Christ  does  for  us,  by 
virtue  of  the  fact  that  he  is  the  immanent  God,  the  life  of 
humanity,  priest  and  victim,  condemning  and  condemned, 
atoning  and  atoned."    Ibid,  page  755. 

"The  solution  of  the  problem  (how  Christ  can  justly 
make  satisfaction)  lies  in  Christ's  union  with  humanit3^ 
The  first  result  of  that  union  is  obligation  to  suffer  for 
men,  since  being  one  with  the  race,  Christ  had  a  share  in 
the  responsibility  of  the  race  to  the  law  and  justice  of  God. 
Christ's  sharing  of  man's  life  justly  and  inevitably  sub- 
jected him  to  man's  exposures  and  liabilities,  and  espe- 
cially to  God's  condemnation  on  account  of  sin.  As  the 
immanent  God  he  was  the  life  of  the  race  and  of  every 
member  of  it."    Ibid.,  page  775. 

Dr.  Strong  quotes  A.  J.  F.  Behrends,  apparently  with 
approval,  as  follows:  "He  is  our  representative,  not  be- 
cause he  was  in  the  loins  of  Adam;  but  because  we,  Adam 
included,  were  in  his  loins.  Personal  created  existence  is 
grounded  in  the  Logos,  so  that  God  must  deal  with  him, 
as  well  as  with  every  individual  sinner;  and  sin  and  guilt 
and  punishment  must  smite  the  Logos  as  well  as  the  sinner 
and  that  whether  the  sinner  is  saved  or  not." 

"Christ's   union   with   the   race   in   the   incarnation   is 

—177— 


only  the  outward  and  visible  expression  of  a  prior  union 
with  the  race  which  began  when  he  created  the  race.  As 
'in  him  were  all  things  created,'  and  as  'in  him  all  things 
consist,'  or  hold  together,  it  follows  that  he  who  is  the  life 
of  humanity  must,  though  personally  pure,  be  involved  in 
responsibility  for  all  human  sin  and  'it  was  necessary  that 
the  Christ  should  suffer.'  "    Ibid.,  page  758. 

"The  imputation  of  our  sins  to  him  is  the  result  of  his 
natural  union  with  us."     Ibid.,  page  716. 

"Original  grace  like  original  sin  is  only  the  ethical 
interpretation  of  biological  facts."    Ibid.,  page  763. 

4.  The  discussion  of  this  subject  involves  the  inter- 
pretation of 

Col,  1:15  ff.,  The  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of 
every  creature,  or  all  creation. 

It  is  said  that  Christ  as  the  image  of  God  represents 
the  perfection  of  God  to  the  creature;  and  as  the  firstborn 
of  every  creature  he  represents  the  ideal  perfection  of  the 
created  universe  to  God. 

In  this  way  a  representative  function  or  office  is  estab- 
lished of  the  Logos  between  the  Godhead  and  the  uni- 
verse; and  in  this  representative  capacity  Christ  becomes 
responsible  for  sin  and  atonement. 

A  full  discussion  of  this  passage  would  lead  us  too  far 
afield.  But  observe  that  the  clause  "firstborn  of  every 
creature"  does  not  identify  Christ  with  the  creation;  for 
the  preceding  clause  asserts  his  divinity  and  the  following 
verse  declares  him  to  be  creator  of  all  things. 

He  cannot  be  creator  and  creature  too. 

The  genitive  "of  every  creature"  is  not  a  partitive 
genitive  but  a  genitive  of  comparison;  not  as  regards  time, 
as  Meyer  says,  but  as  regards  rank.  This  is  a  point  to  be 
held  fast. 

The  purpose  of  the  passage  is  not  to  bring  Christ 
down  into  any  similarity  to  the  creature,  but  the  very 
reverse;  in  opposition  to  incipient  Gnosticism,  to  exalt 
him  above  all  comparison. 

He  is  called  prototokos,  firstborn,  but  the  creation  is 
called  ktisis,  marking  the  distinction  by  the  terms  em- 
ployed. 

Elsewhere  he  is  called  "firstborn  from  the  dead,"  not 
to  class  him  as  one  of  the  dead,  but  to  show  that  resurrec- 
tion has  its  hope  and  cause  in  him.  He  is  called  "firstborn 
among  many  brethren,"  not  to  make  him  one  of  many, 
but  to  point  out  his  higher  rank. 

Some  of  the  fathers  understood  prototokos  to  refer  to 
his  eternal  generation.     This  may  be  doubtful,  since  the 

-178- 


New  Testament  usage  of  the  word  does  not  refer  to  beget- 
ting" but  to  bringing-  forth. 

Meyer  insists  that  the  passage  refers  to  Christ  not  as 
he  was  but  as  he  is  in  his  glorified  state.  In  either  case  it 
marks  the  distance  and  difference  between  Christ  and  all 
things  created,  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Taking  the  whole 
context  into  view  the  purpose  seems  to  be  to  stress  the 
transcendent  nature  of  Christ  as  against  any  minimizing 
tendency. 

The  term  firstborn  conveys  the  meaning  involved  in 
the  then  familiar  law  of  human  primogeniture.  As  the 
firstborn  ruled  and  guided  the  house  of  which  he  was  the 
head  so  the  firstborn  of  all  creation  is  the  Lord  and  gov- 
ernor of  all.  The  supremacy  of  Christ  above  all  created 
things  is  the  dominating  thought  of  the  passage. 

Christ  is  not  the  first  creature  as  the  Arians  would 
interpret  prototokos.  Nor  may  we  saj'-  with  Olshausen 
that  "the  Son  of  God  is  the  intelligible  world." 

The  doctrine  of  an  eternal  humanity  of  Christ,  and 
the  idea  that  he  is  the  prototype  of  humanity,  held  by 
Beyschlag,  and  suggested  by  Dr.  Dale,  is  declared  by 
Meyer  to  be  foreign  to  the  context. 

Verse  i6.  For  in  (sometimes  translated  by)  him  were 
all  things  created  cannot  be  made  to  mean  that  the  uni- 
verse, material  and  spiritual,  is  an  efflux  of  the  divine 
substance;  else  ex  autou  would  be  required  instead  of  en 
auto.  "In  him"  has  no  Pantheistic  taint,  as  Christ  is  ever 
distinguished  from  the  universe  which  he  made. 

Dr.  Strong  lays  much  stress  on  the  expression,  "in 
him"  in  connection  with  the  creation.  His  peculiar  doc- 
trine of  Ethical  Monism  runs  deeply  into  the  idea  that 
all  things  are  created  "in  him."  And  his  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  is  based  on  the  idea  that  Christ  is  the  life  of 
humanity.  "In  him  were  all  things  created"  contains  no 
denial  of  instrumentality,  but  expresses  the  ground  in 
which  lay  the  possibility  of  their  being.  All  things  de- 
pended on  him  for  their  creation.  The  causal  prerogative 
and  power  lay  in  him.  Meyer  affirms  that  the  expression 
is  a  well  known  classical  form  to  denote  causality. 

The  thing  particularly  to  be  remembered  in  regard  to 
this  passage  is  that  it  in  no  sense  identifies  Christ  with 
the  creature;  but  exalts  him  above  and  distinguishes  him 
from  the  creature,  and  therefore  does  not  lend  itself  to 
the  view  that  the  atonement  is  based  upon  an  organic 
relation  to  the  race. 

Another  text  that  figures  largely  is 

Jno.  1:4,  In  him  was  life  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men. 

—179— 


Dr.  Strong-  utters  it  and  reiterates  it,  that  Christ  is  the 
life  of  humanity.  If  the  assumption,  call  it  biological  or 
philosophical  at  will,  is  true,  it  does  not  appear  from  this 
text.  The  zoe,  life,  was  the  phos,  light,  of  men.  Two 
things  are  to  be  observed:  The  zoe  was  the  phos  of  men, 
not  the  zoe  of  men.    Again  the  verb  is  "was,"  not  "is." 

There  is  an  absolute  distinction  between  the  zoe  and 
the  phos;  there  is  no  identity  here.  The  preterite  also 
excludes  the  present  from  the  limitations  of  this  partic- 
ular statement.  Here  is  the  revealing  office  of  the  Logos; 
the  communication  of  divine  truth  in  the  primeval  stage 
of  the  race;  but  identity?  no.  But  this  is  true  that  the 
source  of  life  is  also  the  source  of  light. 

Another  text  that  is  referred  to  in  this  connection  is. 
Rev.   13:8,  Written  in   the  book   of  life  of  the  Lamb  slain   from 
the  foundation  of  the  world. 

Observe: — • 

This  is  not  to  be  understood  literally.  The  crucifixion 
was  an  event  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

It  may  be  regarded  proleptically,  a  matter  of  divine 
purpose  and  foreknowledge. 

The  American  Revisers  connect  the  time  clause  with 
the  word  "written"  and  not  with  the  word  "slain";  ex- 
pressing eternal  election,   not  eternal   atonement. 

In  what  sense  Christ  is  the  "life  of  humanity"  is  the 
crux  of  the  whole  situation.  Dr.  Strong  in  his  Dogmatic 
Theology  repeatedly  makes  the  assertion  but  does  not 
prove  it,  nor  explain  it.  In  his  Ethical  Monism  he  is 
equally  vague  and  reticent. 

To  say  that  Christ  is  the  creator,  and  upholder  of  all 
things,  and  immanent  God  falls  short  of  the  statement 
that  Christ  is  the  life  of  humanity,  and  fails  utterly  in 
making  him  responsible  for  the  sins  of  the  race  and  there- 
fore responsible  for  their  atonement. 

If  man  is  regarded  as  the  efflux  of  the  divine  essence 
there  would  be  some  basis  for  the  position  in  question;  but 
this  is  both  unscriptural  and  unphilosophic.  Christ  is 
creator  of  all  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth  material  and 
spiritual,  and  any  effluent  conception  is  too  essentially 
pantheistic.     That   would  be   divine  monism. 

Some  theologians,  in  explaining  the  moral  power  of 
Christ  over  the  race,  have  declared  that  he  was  one  with 
the  race  in  sympathy  and  fellowship;  but  this  is  not  what 
is  meant. 

Others  have  rested  the  union  of  Christ  and  man  on  a 
federal  representation  voluntarily  and  graciously  assumed; 
but  this  is  exactly  what  is  repudiated;  and  denominated 

—180— 


an  arbitrary  imputation  and  a  legal  fiction.  We  are  not 
too  much  to  fear  God's  arbitrariness.  To  some  minds  the 
exercise  of  divine  sovereignty  seems  arbitrary.  Creation 
was  an  arbitrary  act.  Redemption  itself  was  arbitrary. 
The  sovereignty  that  is  arbitrary  may  be  none  the  less 
gracious.  If  the  gracious  assumption  of  human  guilt  by 
imputation  is  arbitrary,  then  the  original  establishment 
of  organic  relation  to  the  race,  or  the  original  purpose  to 
create  is  also  arbitrariness  only  one  step  farther  away. 

Man  is  a  moral  and  responsible  being  under  the  laws 
oT  God,  and  legal  relations  and  conceptions  are  not  only 
pertinent  but  inevitable.  The  jurist's  law  is  not  the  nat- 
uralist's law;  but  just  as  necessary  in  a  moral  universe. 
Biology  and  government  are  different  realms.  To  confuse 
them  brings  but  one  result,  confusion.  That  "he  was  made 
sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin,"  in  the  accepted  sense  of  the 
words,  was  no  legal  fiction  but  a  legal  reality. 

Further,  if  Christ's  relation  to  men  as  creator  consti- 
tutes the  ground  of  his  responsibility  for  human  sin,  it 
would  follow  by  logical  inference  that  his  relation  to 
angels,  as  the  creator  of  things  in  heaven,  would  entail  on 
him  the  responsibility  for  angelic  defection. 

And  if  his  relation  as  creator  of  men  lays  on  him  the 
obligation  for  their  redemption,  the  same  law  must  hold 
good  in  regard  to  fallen  angels.  The  conclusion  is  inevit- 
able from  the  premises  assumed. 

The  arbitrariness  of  God's  sovereignty  would  at  least 
escape  this  conclusion:  "for  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the 
nature  of  angels  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham." 

The  Scriptures  everywhere  represent  salvation  as  a 
gratuity  or  a  free  gift,  and  that  Christ  came  voluntarily, 
and  gave  his  life  voluntarily.  This  does  not  harmonize 
well  with  the  conception  that  Christ  lay  under  an  obliga- 
tion that  he  could  not  escape. 

However  much  it  is  sought  to  tie  up  the  doctrine  with 
certain  biblical  expressions  it  still  remains  more  specula- 
tive than  scriptural. 

What  then  is  the  truth  in  the  conception  of  eternal, 
atonement?  It  is  certain  that  the  atonement  expresses 
eternal  facts  in  the  nature  of  God.  God's  eternal  antago- 
nism to  evil;  God's  eternal  love  for  his  creatures;  the 
eternal  attributes  of  mercy,  justice,  holiness,  and  love,  etc., 
and  the  mutual  relation  of  these  attributes.  These  are 
eternal  and  immanent  in  the  work  of  atonement. 

As  revelation  was  a  moral  certainty  growing  out  of 
the   nature   of   God   and  his   love   for  those   made   in   his 

— i8i— 


imag"e,  so  atonement  was  a  moral  certainty  on  the  same 
grounds. 

The  necessity  of  atonement  was  a  relative,  not  an 
absolute,  necessity, — not  the  necessity  of  compulsion,  or 
obligation,  or  debt  to  the  creature,  but  a  necessity  to  ends 
contingent  in  themselves.  The  atonement  was  a  necessity 
if  man  was  to  be  saved;  and  if,  in  saving  man,  God  must 
maintain  his  veracity,  and  vindicate  his  holiness. 

The  atonement  finds  its  roots  in  the  attributes  of  God. 
The  divine  actions  are  the  expressions  of  the  divine 
nature,  and  the  divine  nature  necessitates  the  harmon^^  of 
all  the  attributes,  holiness,  justice,  mercy  and  love,  etc., 
else  one  attribute  would  destroy  another. 

The  incarnation,  substitution,  sacrifice,  remission,  and 
propitiation  find  their  explanation  in  the  immutable  char- 
acter and  harmony  of  the  divine  nature  and  in  this  sense 
we  may  speak  of  the  eternal  atonement. 

The  atonement  is  particularly  the  expression  of  God's 
nature  in  its  relation  to  moral  government  in  a  fallen 
world.  Jt  answers  the  question  how  God  can  be  just  and 
justify  the  ungodly. 

The  historical  work,  was  the  concrete  exhibition  of 
eternal  facts  and  immutable  principles,  making  visible  the 
invisible. 

We  can  quote  Dr.  Strong  with  approval  when  he  says: 
"As  the  earthly  tabernacle  was  made  after  the  pattern 
shown  in  the  mount,  so  the  historical  atonement  was  but 
the  shadowing  forth  to  dull  and  finite  minds  of  an  infinite 
demand  of  the  divine  holiness,  and  an  infinite  satisfaction 
rendered  by  the  divine  love." 

How  God  can  create  without  imparting  his  divine 
substance  to  the  creature, — how  God  can  communicate  his 
will  and  grace  to  men, — in  fact  how  any  spirit  can  com- 
mune with  another, — how  God  can  be  immanent  and  yet 
apart  from  all  the  beings  interpenetrated  by  his  essence, — 
how  God  operates  in  regeneration  beneath  the  sphere  of 
consciousness, — how  the  sense  of  guilt  and  condemnation 
is  taken  away  and  peace  possesses  the  soul  of  the  believer, 
— all  these  things  and  many  more  are  mysterious  if  not 
incomprehensible. 

But  one  thing  is  certain,  we  must  so  postulate  the 
relation  of  God  to  man  as  not  to  lose  the  personality  of 
God  in  man,  nor  submerge  the  personality  of  man  in  God; 
neither  to  compromise  the  holiness  of  God  by  making  him 
responsible  for  human  sin,  nor  render  man  unaccountable 
for  sin  by  laying  it  upon  his  creator.     Either  line  of  aber- 

—182— 


ration  is  fatal  to  all  moral  life  in  the  world.  This  is  the 
sin  of  pantheism.  Whatever  view  of  the  atonement  effaces 
or  obscures  the  transcendence  and  holiness  of  God  and  the 
individuality  and  responsibility  of  man  proves  itself  false 
by  the  outcome.  These  fundamental  facts  must  be  held 
inviolable  as  the  presuppositions  of  moral  government  and 
religious  life  in  the  world. 

Section  X.  Union  of  objective  and  subjective  in  the 
atonement. 

Before  passing-  to  the  APPLICATION  of  the  atone- 
ment we  may  well  consider  briefly  the  relation  of  the 
objective  facts  to  the  subjective  effect. 

One  of  the  problems  of  the  present-day  theologian  is 
to  conceive  and  express  the  laws  which  connect  the  atone- 
ment with  the  new  life  springing  from  it.  Have  we 
regarded  the  atonement  too  much  as  a  transaction  and  not 
as  a  living  acting  force?  Is  the  atonement  something  done 
and  finished  nineteen  hundred  years  ago,  or  a  vitalizing 
power  in  the  world  now? 

In  distinguishing  between  the  work  of  Christ  and  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  we  cannot  separate  them  entirely,  nor 
fail  to  recognize  that  they  are  both  of  one  piece.  What 
Christ  did  without  us  and  what  he  does  within  us  are 
correlative.  The  moral  influence  theory  cuts  the  fruit 
from  the  root;  but  we  will  cut  the  root  from  the  fruit  if 
we  separate  the  atonement  from  the  life  that  grows  out 
of  it. 

There  is  a  vital  union  between  the  making  of  the 
atonement  and  the  application  of  it.  To  receive  Christ  is 
to  receive  the  atonement.  Christ  mediates  the  atonement 
to  us  by  the  communication  of  life.  Christ  communicates 
the  atonement  through  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  The  work 
of  the  Spirit  is  the  atonement  in  action.  Not  only  must 
the  atonement  pay  the  penalty  of  sin,  but  right  all  the 
wrong  of  sin;  and  this  work  is  present-day  and  age-long 
work.  The  atonement  is  more  than  a  mere  transaction 
past  and  gone;  it  is  a  living  force.  This  is  not  confusing 
the  work  of  Christ  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit  but  connect- 
ing them. 


-183- 


The  following  chapters  are  sometimes  classified  as  a 
distinct  PART  called  PNEUMATOLOGY.  However  they 
properly  belong-  to  Soteriology  since  they  embrace: 

The  Application  of  Redemption,  or  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

The  work  of  Christ  was  to  MAKE  the  atonement;  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  APPLY  it;  to  use  general 
terms. 

Catechism  29,  How  are  we  made  partakers  of  the 
redemption,  etc. 

Catechism  30,  How  doth  the  Spirit  apply  to  us  the 
redemption,  etc. 

The  purpose  of  God  in  man's  salvation  not  only 
secures  the  making  of  an  atonement;  but  secures  the 
application  of  it,  to  those  who  are  saved.  Without  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  all  men  would  continue  in  rebellion 
and  sin,  and  Christ  then  had  died  in  vain. 

The  Spirit's  work  is  to  make  the  atonement  certainly 
efficacious  to  those  who  are  saved. 


Chapter  VI.    Vocation  or  Calling. 

The  first  step  in  the  Spirit's  work  is  vocation  or  call- 
ing. 

1.  There  is  the  external  call  of  the  gospel:  e.g.  "Ho 
every  one  that  thirsteth."  "Come  unto  me  all  ye  that 
labor."  "The  Spirit  and  the  bride  say:  Come."  "Whoso- 
ever will  let  him  come." 

(a)  It  is  universal;  addressed  to  all  indiscriminately, 
Christ's  command  is  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature;  because  it  is  a  proclamation  of  the  terms  on 
which  God  is  willing  to  save  sinners. 

(b)  A  universal  call  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  per- 
sonal election,  or  non  election,  because  it  is  the  means  to 
the  end  in  one  case,  and  a  ground  of  condemnation  in  the 
other. 

(c)  The  call  is  addressed  to  men  through  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

The  way  of  salvation  is  not  made  known: — 
By  the  works  of  nature. 
By  providence, 
By  intuition. 

By  the  deductions  of  reason. 
Nor  generally  by  internal  revelation. 

—184— 


But  the  way  of  salvation  is  made  known  by  revelation 
in  the  Scriptures. 

As  to  the  external  call  there  are  many  called  and  few 
chosen. 

2.  There  is  an  effectual  call  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
usually  through  the  word  by  which  men  are  brought  into 
saving  relation  to  God. 

Rom.  8:30,  Whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called;  and 
whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified. 

I.  Cor.  1:9,  By  whom  ye  were  called  unto  the  fellowship  of  his 
Son. 

I.  Peter  2:9,  Who  hath  called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his  mar- 
velous light. 

I.  Pet.  5:10,  Who  hath  called  us  unto  his  eternal  glory  by 
Christ  Jesus. 

Catechism  31,  What  is  effectual  calling? 
This  call  convicts,  convinces,  persuades,  enables. 
It  is  effectual  in  that  it  secures  the  submission  of  the 
soul  to  God. 

It  is  particular,  personal,  efficacious  and  irresistible. 


Chapter  VII.    Grace. 

1.  Grace  Defined. 

The  word  grace  means  favor. 

The  kindly  disposition  toward  man  in  the  mind  of 
God  is  called  grace. 

The  operation  of  a  holy  divine  influence  on  man  is 
called  grace. 

The  result  of  that  operation  in  the  heart  and  life  of 
man  is  called  grace. 

2.  Grace  Distinguished. 

Common  grace  is  a  greater  or  less  measure  of  grace 
granted  to  all  who  hear  the  gospel. 

Prevenient  grace  is  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
mind  that  precedes  and  excites  its  efforts  to  return  to  God. 

Sufficient  grace  is  grace  sufficient  to  lead  to  repent- 
ance and  faith. 

Efficacious  grace  is  such  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  as 
is  certainly  effectual  in  producing  regeneration  and  con- 
version. 

Habitual  grace  is  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  in  be- 
lievers. 

-185- 


3.  Grace  and  Truth. 

(a)  Some  hold  that  there  is  no  influence  of  the  Spirit 
on  the  hearts  of  men,  but  only  the  natural  influence  of  the 
truth. 

(b)  Luther  and  his  coadjutors  taught  that  the  power 
of  the  Spirit  was  inherent  in  the  word  and  that  he  never 
operates  on  the  mind  except  through  and  by  the  word. 

They  were  led  to  this  position  by  the  claims  of 
fanatics  to  direct  communications  from  God  independent 
of  the  Scriptures. 

(c)  Reformed  theology  teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit's 
influence  is  distinct  from  the  natural  influence  of  the 
truth;  that  the  Holy  Spirit  also  acts  with  the  truth,  pre- 
paring the  mind  for  the  truth,  and  making  it  effective,  and 
further  that  the  Spirit  may  act  directly  upon  the  mind  and 
independent  of  the  truth. 

Among  other  things  the  Spirit  restrains  evil,  instructs, 
awakens,  convicts,  convinces,  persuades,  regenerates,  sanc- 
tifies. He  may  use  means  or  no  means,  act  with  the  truth 
or  without  the  truth,  where  and  when  and  how  he  pleases. 

Catechism  89,  How  is  the  word  made  effectual  to  sal- 
vation? The  Spirit  of  God  maketh  the  reading  but  espe- 
cially the  preaching  of  the  word  an  effectual  nieans  of 
convincing  and  converting  sinners  and  of  building  them 
up  in  holiness  and  comfort  through  faith  unto  salvation. 

4.  The  Effect  of  Common  Grace. 

(a)  Semi-Pelagians  and  Romanists  hold  that  common 
grace  is  sufficient  to  enable  the  sinner  to  do  that  which 
will  either  merit,  or  secure  larger  degrees  of  grace,  which 
if  duly  improved  will  issue  in  salvation. 

This  puts  the  efficiency  largely  in  the  hands  of  man. 

(b)  The  Arminian  confession  says:  "The  Holy  Ghost 
confers  or  is  ready  to  confer  upon  all  and  each,  to  whom 
the  word  of  faith  is  ordinarily  preached,  as  much  grace  as 
is  sufficient  for  generating  faith  and  carrying  forward 
their  conversion  in  its  successive  stages. 

Thus  sufficient  grace  for  faith  and  conversion  not 
only  to  those  who  actually  believe  and  are  converted,  but 
also  to  those  who  do  not  actually  believe  and  are  not  in 
fact  converted." — "Confessio  Remonstrantium." 

This  makes  salvation  a  matter  of  co-operation  with 
common  grace. 

(c)  The  Calvinistic  and  Reformed  system  teaches  that 
there  is  a  common  grace  that  it  is  sufficient  for  some 
things, — to    convince    men    of    sin    and   of    their   need    of 

— i8r>— 


redemption,  and  to  render  men   inexcusable  for  sin  and 
unbelief. 

Rom.   1:20,  The  invisible   things   of  Him   etc.   are  clearly  seen. 

Rom.  2:1,  Therefore  thou  art  inexcusable  O  man. 

Acts   14:17,   He  left   himself  not  without  witness   in   that   he  did 
good  etc. 

This  common  grace  does  awaken  and  incite  to  better 
thing's;  but  does  not  change  the  heart  or  regenerate  the 
nature,  and  that  regeneration  is  not  effected  by  the  co-op- 
eration of  the  human  will. 

Dr.  Shedd  says:  "The  non-elect  receive  common 
grace,  and  common  grace  would  incline  the  human  will  if 
it  were  not  defeated  by  the  human  will.  If  the  sinner 
should  make  no  hostile  opposition,  common  grace  would 
be  equivalent  to  saving  grace. 

Acts  7:51,  Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Spirit. 

n.  Tim.  3:8,  Now  as  Jannes  and  Jambres  withstood  Moses,  so  do 
these  also  resist   the   truth. 

"To  say  that  common  grace,  if  not  resisted  by  the 
sinner,  would  be  equivalent  to  regenerating  grace  is  not 
the  same  as  to  say  that  common  grace  ASSISTED  by  the 
sinner  would  be  equivalent  to  regenerating  grace.  In  the 
first  instance,  God  would  be  the  sole  author  of  regenera- 
tion; in  the  second  he  would  not  be." 

In  answer  to  the  question:  What  is  the  efficient  cause 
of  a  change  of  heart  we  have  the  following  replies: — 

Pelagianism  says,  the  human  will. 

Arminianism  says,  the  co-operation  of  the  human  and 
divine  wills. 

Roman  Catholicism  says,  divine  grace  deposited  in 
the  sacrament  of  baptism. 

The  Lutheran  saj^s,  the  Spirit  of  God  operating  ordin- 
arily through  the  word  and  sacraments. 

The  Reformed  and  Calvinistic  faiths  say,  the  Spirit 
working  when  and  where  and  how  he  wills. 


Chapter  VIII.    Regeneration. 

1.  Regeneration  is  not  a  change  in  the  substance  of 
the  soul. 

2.  It  is  not  a  new  faculty  added  to  the  soul. 

3.  It  is  not  moral  suasion, 

4.  It  is  not  co-operation  of  human  and  divine  power, 
called  synergism. 

—187— 


5.  It  is  not  dependent  on  the  congruity  of  the  human 
and  divine  minds;  but  God  is  sovereign  in  regeneration 
and  can  reg"enerate  when  and  whom  he  will;  even  men  at 
the  height  of  their  rebellion. 

6.  It  is  an  almig"hty  creative  act  of  God. 

7.  It  is  instantaneous. 

8.  It  is  without  means.  It  is  not  proper  to  speak  of 
the  means  of  reg'eneration.  There  is  no  baptismal  reg"en- 
eration  in  the  sense  that  baptism  is  the  efficient  cause,  or 
even  an  instrumental  cause. 

9.  It  is  irresistible.  Man  can  no  more  resist  the  new 
birth  than  he  can  resist  his  natural  birth.  God  g"ave  us 
being"  without  the  exercise  of  our  power  or  even  our  con- 
sent being-  asked  in  the  matter. 

10.  While  regeneration  does  not  change  the  substance 
of  the  soul  nor  add  new  faculties,  it  does  produce  a  moral 
change,  in  disposition,  in  character,  in  the  direction  of  the 
soul's  activities;  it  brings  in  a  new  principle  of  life  dom- 
inating and  regulating  the  conduct;  in  short  it  imparts 
spriritual  life. 

I.  Jno.  5:12,  He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life. 

Ephes.  2:1,  And  you  hath  he  quickened  who  were  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins. 

Ephes.  2:5,  Even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins  hath  quickened 
us,  etc. 

The  word  "quicken"  is  literally,  "make  alive." 

11.  Man  ma3^  co-operate  with  prevenient  grace  and 
with  subsequent  or  sanctifying  grace;  but  is  passive  in 
regeneration. 

It  must  be  particularly  observed  that  while  man  may 
co-operate  with  prevenient  grace,  it  is  not  human  co-oper- 
ation that  renders  grace  efficacious.  God's  grace  needs 
no  human  assistance  to  make  it  effectual.  All  the  effi- 
ciency of  grace  is  of  God. 

Even  the  co-operation  that  man  renders  is  the  pro- 
duct of  God's  grace. 

Ephes.  2:8,  By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith  and  that  not  of 
yourselves,   it  is  the  gift  of  God. 

12.  Regeneration  is  below  the  sphere  of  conscious- 
ness, but  its  effects  come  into  conscious  apprehension  in 
the  graces  of  the  Christian  life. 

13.  Regeneration  is  absolutely  essential  to  salvation. 

Jno.  3:3,  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom of  God. 

—188— 


Chapter  IX.    Faith. 

1.  Usage  of  the  word. 

(a)  Objective  faith.  "Faith"  sometimes  connotes  the 
object  on  which  faith  rests,  or  the  essential  contents  of 
faith,  as  a  body  of  truth. 

The  following-  are  examples  of  objective  faith: — "Hath 
denied  the  faith."  "Preacheth  the  faith  which  once  he 
destroyed."  "Some  shall  depart  from  the  faith."  "The 
word  of  faith  which  we  preach."  "The  faith  once  deliv- 
ered to  the  saints." 

Here  faith  means  a  body  of  truth  or  doctrine. 

"Christ  our  hope"  points  out  the  object  on  which  our 
hope  is  fixed  and  is  an  example  of  objective  hope. 

If  I  say:  "The  Bible  is  my  faith."  The  word  faith  is 
used  in  an  objective  sense. 

(b)  Subjective  faith. 

The  word  faith  also  and  more  frequently  expresses  a 
quality  or  action  of  the  soul."  "I  have  faith"  discloses 
subjective  faith. 

"I  believe,  or  exercise  faith  in  God,"  expresses  a  sub- 
jective faith. 

"If  ye  had  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard." 

"Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee." 

"Faith  is  substance  of  things  hoped  for,"  all  express 
subjective  faith. 

2.  Definitions  of  Faith. 

Faith  is  belief  in  that  for  which  there  is  no  proof — the 
infidel's  definition. 

Faith  is  belief  in  what  is  unseen  or  not  apprehended 
by  the  senses. 

This  is  not  comprehensive  enough. 

Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for  and  evi- 
dence of  things  not  seen.  Heb.  ii:i.  This  may  not  have 
been  intended  for  a  strict  definition  of  faith.  There  is  a 
difference  between  a  definition  and  a  description  or  char- 
acterization. 

Faith  is  belief  on  evidence.  Best  definition  of  faith 
in  the  abstract.  Faith  is  assent  of  the  mind  and  consent 
of  the  will.    This  is  true  of  saving  faith. 

"Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is  a  saving  grace  whereby  we 
receive  and  rest  upon  Him  alone  for  salvation  as  He  is 
offered  to  us  in  the  gospel."  Cat.  86.  Best  definition  of 
saving  faith. 

"Faith  is  assent  of  the  mind  to  what  is  probably  but 
not  certainly  true." — Locke. 

—189— 


"Faith  is  any  persuasion  weaker  than  knowledge,  and 
stroiig'er  than  possibility  or  probability."  It  is  common 
usage  to  say  of  that  which  is  uncertain,  I  think  it  is  so; 
of  that  which  is  highly  probable,  I  believe  it  is  so;  of  that 
which  is  demonstrably  certain,  I  know  it  is  so.  Here  then 
we  have  faith  as  something  more  than  opinion  and  some- 
thing less  than  certainty.  This  scarcely  does  justice  to 
faith;  which  often  includes  the  strongest  convictions  oi 
the  human  mind. 

3.  Kinds  of  Faith. 

(a)  Speculative  faith,  or  historical  faith,  is  an  intel- 
lectual apprehension  lacking  a  moral  or  spiritual  purpose. 

Acts  8:13.     Simon  Magus  was  said  to  believe. 
James   2:19.     The   devils  believe   and   tremble. 
The  faith  that  does  not  lay  hold  of  Christ  is  not  a 
saving  faith. 

(b)  Temporary"  faith.  A  faith  seemingly  genuine  but 
evanescent  in  character.  Illustrated  by  the  seed  sown  on 
the  rock. 

(c)  Saving  faith.  Such  a  faith  as  unites  the  soul  to 
God,  and  issues  in  salvation.  True  faith  has  the  element 
of  affection  as  well  as  belief  and  the  element  of  will  or 
purpose  combined  with  both. 

The  Roman  Catholic  theologian  distinguishes  saving 
faith  into  explicit  and  implicit  faith. 

When  a  man  understands  and  intelligently  believes  he 
exercises  explicit  faith. 

But  there  are  manj'  doctrines  which  a  humble  man 
may  not  understand,  and  may  never  have  heard,  yet  he 
may  believe  and  accept  all  that  the  church  teaches,  be- 
cause he  has  confidence  in  the  church.  This  is  called 
implicit  faith. 

The  question  may  verj^  properlj^  be  raised,  whether  the 
man  has  any  faith  as  to  the  things  of  which  he  knows 
nothing. 

The  Disciple  or  Campbellite  has  been  accused  of  re- 
ducing saving  faith  to  a  mere  intellectual  assent  to  the 
truth. 

4.  Relation  of  Faith  to  Knowledg'e. 

(a)  No  sharp  line  can  be  drawn  between  faith  and 
knowledge. 

Their  spheres  overlap. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  we  do  not  believe  what  we 
know  or  that  we  do  not  know  some  things  which  we 
believe. 

— 190 — 


I  niay  say:  I  know  I  washed  my  face  this  morning-. 
I  may  also  sa3':    I  believe  I  washed  my  face  this  morning. 

The  fact  of  knowing  it  does  not  curtail  nor  supersede 
belief  in  it.  However,  faith  may  differ  from  knowledge  in 
the  elements  of  emotion  and  will,  in  cases  involving'  a 
person. 

(b)   Which  takes  precedence? 

Must  we  know  in  order  to  believe  or  believe  in  order 
to  know? 

Here  too  no  universal  rule  is  admissable. 

There  must  be  some  apprehension  before  there  can  be 
faith  in  a  person  or  a  proposition.  No  one  can  believe  in 
a  God  of  whom  he  has  never  heard  nor  in  a  proposition 
that  has  never  been  before  his  mind.  No  one  can  believe 
in  a  God  of  whom  he  has  no  intellectual  apprehension. 

On  the  other  hand*  there  must  be  faith  in  the  trust- 
worthiness of  our  senses,  our  faculties,  and  the  processes 
of  thought  before  siny  considerable  acquisition  of  know- 
ledge is  possible. 

5.     Faith  in  relation  to  Salvation. 

(a)  It  is  the  connecting"  link  between  the  believer  and 
Christ. 

The  Spirit  applies  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ 
by  working"  faith  in  us  and  thereby  uniting"  us  to  Christ. 

Gal.  3:26.  For  ye  are  all  the  sons  of  God  through  faith  in 
Christ   Jesus. 

Jno.  1:12.  To  as  many  as  received  him  to  them  gave  he  power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God. 

Jno,  3:16.     Whosoever  believeth  on  him,  etc. 

I.  Jno.  5:12.  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is 
born  of  God. 

Acts  16:3.  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved. 

(b)  It  is  the  instrumental  cause  of  Justification.  Rom. 
5:1.    Being  justified  by  faith. 

(c)  Results  in  peace,  assurance,  sanctification  and  all 
graces  of  the  Christ  life. 

(d)  Faith  is  an  appropriate  condition  of  salvation  be- 
cause an  intellectual  apprehension  and  belief  of  the  truth 
is  necessary  in  order  to  yield  to  it  and  obey  it;  and  a  per- 
sonal trust  in  God,  and  purpose  toward  him  is  essential  to 
any  filial  relation. 


—191- 


Chapter  X.     Conversion. 

1.  Definition.  Conversion  is  turning-  from  sin  unto 
God.  Conversion  is  the  human  side  of  that  transaction 
which  unites  the  soul  to  Christ.  Faith,  repentance  and 
conversion  are  human  activities.  This  does  not  deny  that 
they  are  supernatural  effects.  They  are  both.  "Work  out 
your  own  salvation  in  fear  and  trembling,  for  it  is  not  ye 
that  work  but  God  that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to 
do  of  his  good  pleasure."  Some  authorities  say  that  turn- 
ing from  sin  is  repentance,  and  turning  to  God  is  faith. 
It  is  doubtful  if  such  discrimination  is  valid.  Rather  the 
term  repentance  covers  both.  No  better  definition  of  con- 
version is  found  than  that  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  Ques- 
tion 87.     What  is  Repentance  unto  life? 

"Repentance  unto  life  is  a  saving  grace,  whereby  a 
sinner,  out  of- a  true  sense  of  his  sin,  and  apprehension  of 
the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  doth,  with  grief  and  hatred 
of  his  sin,  turn  from  it  unto  God,  with  full  purpose  of,  and 
endeavor  after  new  obedience." 

2.  Explanation. 

(a)  It  will  be  seen  in  the  above  definition  how  conver- 
sion involves  the  whole  man. 

Observe,  "sense  of  sin  and  apprehension," — there  is 
the  intellectual  element;  "grief  and  hatred," — there  is  the 
emotional  element;  "full  purpose," — there  is  the  volitional 
element;  "endeavor,"  —  there  is  purpose  translated  into 
action, 

(b)  Repentance  and  conversion  mean  more  than  mere 
sorrow  for  sin. 

There  is  a  sorrow  of  the  world  that  worketh  death. 

Judas  had  sorrow  but  no  repentance  or  conversion. 

True  examples  of  repentance  are,  Job,  David,  Peter, 
the  prodigal,  the  penitent  thief,  and  Saul;  each  of  whom 
not  only  sorrowed  for  sin,  but  turned  unto  God. 

(c)  How  much  conviction,  sorrow,  faith,  etc.  is  neces- 
sary to  conversion? 

H.  W.  Beecher  once  said:  "How  many  knots  an  hour 
must  the  wind  blow  to  take  the  ship  out  of  the  harbor? 
Will  ten  knots  do  it?  Yes.  Will  five  knots  do  it?  Yes 
five  knots  will  do  it.  Will  one  knot  do  it?  Yes,  one  will 
do  it  if  that  is  enough  to  move  the  ship." 

Lydia  came  by  the  gentle  persuasion  of  the  truth 
blessed  by  God,  but  it  required  an  earthquake  to  move  the 
Philippian  jailor. 

(d)  Does  conversion  occur  but  once? 

— 192 — 


Since  conversion  means  turning"  from  sin  unto  God, 
and  since  regeneration  is  not  immediate  sanctification,  all 
turning'  to  God  is  a  conversion  in  a  modified  sense;  but 
the  best  terminology  confines  conversion  to  the  initial 
stages  of  the  work,  when  a  new  principle  becomes  dom- 
inant in  the  government  of  the  life. 

New  blessings  there '  may  be,  new  steps,  degrees  of 
sanctification,  fluctuations,  falls  and  restoration,  renewed 
endeavors  and  victories;  but  these  are  phases  of  a  nature 
already  changed  by  regeneration;  and  the  first  experiential 
chang'e  we  call  conversion. 

3.  Logical  and  Chronological  Relations. 

What  is  the  order  of  events  in  the  process  of  conver- 
sion? 

Does  faith  precede  regeneration?  Or  must  a  man  be 
reg'enerated  in  order  to  believe? 

Does  a  man  turn  to  God  to  be  saved,  or  does  he  turn 
to  God  because  he  is  saved? 

The  process  of  conversion  is  so  complex  that  it  is  not 
wise  to  fix  an  exact  chronolog"ical  order;  if  indeed  it  is 
wase  in  all  respects  to  fix  a  log-ical  one.  We  may  allow 
some  variety  in  details. 

In  some  cases  the  steps  may  be  sjaichronous,  in  others, 
faith,  repentance,  conversion,  etc.,  may  be  very  complex  in 
themselves,  and  inanifest  themselves  in  degrees  and  mea- 
sures rather  than  in  integral  steps. 

Logically  and  chronologically,' however,  a  regenerated 
life  follows  and  is  the  result  of  a  regenerated  nature. 

Dr.  Strong"  illustrates: — -"A  candidate  for  ordination 
was  once  asked  which  came  first:  reg"eneration  or  conver- 
sion. He  replied  very  correctly:  'Regeneration  and  con- 
version are  like  the  cannon-ball  and  the  hole — they  both 
g"o  through  together.'  This  is  true  however  only  as  to 
their  chronolog"ical  relation.  Logically  the  ball  is  first 
and  causes  the  hole,  not  the  hole  first  and  causes  the  ball." 

4.  Divine  and  Human  Agency  in  Conversion. 

(a)   In  regeneration  God  is  the  sole  agent. 

Conversion  belong-s  to  the  human  side  of  the  work  of 
g^race  and  involves  human  agfency. 

Yet  even  the  human  side  is  not  devoid  of  divine 
ag"ency.  God  so  works  on  man  and  in  man  as  to  incite 
and  call  forth  his  activity. 

Human  agency  in  conversion  is  so  interpenetrated  by 
divine  agency  that  no  sharp  line  can  be  drawn  between 

—193— 


the  human  and  divine  elements.  No  one  can  say  just 
where  the  divine  leaves  off  and  the  human  beg"ins. 

Phil.  2:12-13.  Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling;  for  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 
of  his  good  pleasure. 

(b)  This  does  not  destroy  man's  freedom,  really 
makes  him  truly  free.  God's  work  in  man  instead  of 
interfering-  with  man's  freedom,  to  mention  but  one  thing-, 
takes  off  the  pressure  of  man's  innate  moral  depravity  that 
hinders  his  free  approach  to  God. 

Man  is  an  agent,  a  free  moral  agent,  however  much 
God's  agency  is  involved  in  man's  activity. 

Everywhere  in  the  Scriptures  man  is  commanded  to 
do  that  for  which  divine  grace  is  required  in  the  doing- 
of  it. 

The  man  with  a  withered  arm  was  commanded  to 
stretch  it  forth. 

The  paralytic  was  bidden  to  arise  and  walk. 

The  impotent  man  to  arise  and  carry  his  bed. 

So  men  are  commanded  to  believe;  yet  faith  is  called 
the  "gift  of  God." 

The  lost  sheep  is  carried  home  as  if  he  had  nothing 
to  do;  and  the  prodig'al  walks  home  as  if  he  had  every- 
thing to  do. 

While  God  turns  men  to  himself,  men  are  bidden  to 
turn   themselves. 

Ephes.  5:14.  Awake  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead 
and  Christ  shall   give   thee  light. 

The  immanent  God  stands  at  the  springs  of  our  action 
and  the  fountains  of  our  being-  below  the  point  where 
consciousness  begins. 


Chapter  XI.    Justification. 

Section  I.     Definitions  of  Justification. 

(a)  Shorter  Catechism  33 — -"Justification  is  an  act  of 
God's  free  grace  wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins  and 
accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the  rig-ht- 
eousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us  and  received  by  faith 
alone. 

(b)  Roman  Catholic  definition. 

"Justification  is  not  only  a  remission  of  sins  but  also 
the  sanctification  and  renovation  of  the  inner  man." 

(c)  The  Arminian  definition. 

—194— 


Justification  is  a  "remission  of  sins,"  "a  sentence  of 
pardon." — Watson's  Institutes. 

"The  plain  scriptural  notion  of  justification  is  pardon, 
the  forg'iveness  of  sins."— Wesley's  Works. 

(d)   Socinian  or  Unitarian  view. 

Jesus  Christ  bj^  his  life  and  example  wins  men  to 
faith  in  God.  This  faith  puts  men  into  filial  relationship 
to  God,  with  consequent  nioral  chang'e.  This  rectifying"  of 
life  by  faith  is  justification.  No  atonement,  no  imputed 
rig'hteousness;  but  subjective  chang"e;  alTecting"  the  moral 
rather  than  the  legal  status  of  man. 

The  following-  discussion  will  show  which  of  these 
views  is  most  scriptural  and  therefore  correct. 

Section  II.    The  Nature  of  Justification, 

There  are  two  views,  and  really  only  two  of  the  nature 
of  justification.  They  are  called  the  subjective  or  moral 
view;  and  the  objective  or  forensic  view.  The  one  con- 
ceives of  justification  as  an  internal  chang'e  in  the  realm 
of  our  spiritual  life;  the  other  as  an  external  change  in 
the  realm  of  our  legal  relations,  or  our  relation  to  the  law 
of  God. 

On  one  side  are  the  Roman  Catholics,  the  Socinians 
or  Unitarians,  and  those  schools  loosely  designated  as  the 
New  Theology.  On  the  other  side  are  the  Lutheran, 
Reformed,  Calvinistic  and  Arminian  Churches.  Strictly 
speaking,  however,  the  Roman  Catholic  stands  on  both 
sides,  teaching  a  justification  by  an  inherent  righteousness 
yet  admitting  a  forensic  side  to  the  transaction,  basing  it 
on  the  expiatory  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Roman 
Catholic  idea  of  justification  includes  the  idea  of  sanctifi- 
cation  as  well.     This  causes  confusion  in  discussion. 

1.     The  subjective  or  moral  view. 

(a)   Roman. 

This  conceives  of  justification  as  something  taking 
place  within  a  man  "renovatio  interioris  hominis,"  regard- 
ed by  the  Romanist  as  a  removal  of  original  sin  and  the 
infusion  of  righteousness  by  the  rite  of  baptism.  Justifica- 
tion therefore  takes  place  because  of  an  inherent  right- 
eousness, or  because  of  what  a  man  is.  Good  works  also 
are  a  basis  of  justification  to  the  adult,  according  to  the 
Roman  Catholic.  The  Roman  Catholic  position  really 
amounts  to  two  justifications;  one  because  of  an  infused 
grace  in  baptism,  the  other  because  of  the  merit  of  good 
works  wrought  out  by  the  man  himself;  both  subjective 
in  their  nature. 

—195— 


(b)   Evolutionary  Schools,  etc. 

The  evolutionary  schools  from  Schleiermacher  on- 
wards, and  those  who  hold  to  the  moral  influence  theory 
of  the  atonement,  also  hold  to  the  subjective  nature  of 
justification.  These  schools  repudiate  the  doctrines  of 
expiation  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  and  imputation  of  his 
rig-hteousness,  and  base  man's  salvation  on  his  inherent 
character.  Hence  justification  is  subjective.  This  leaves 
little  hope  for  the  thief  on  the  cross  whose  character  had 
been  evil  all  his  life.  A  dying  sinner  needs  a  safer  basis 
for  his  salvation  than  his  own  character.  As  between  the 
New  Theolog-y  and  the  Roman  Catholic  position  the  latter 
is  preferable  by  far,  for  it  proceeds  upon  the  recognition 
of  original  sin,  expiatory  atonement  and  the  need  of 
supernatural   grace. 

2,     The  objective  or  forensic  view. 

(a)   Statement. 

This  view  regards  justification  as  a  judicial  act;  it 
discharges  the  sinner  from  the  condemnation  of  the  law, 
it  is  declaratory,  it  is  a  sentence  of  acquittal,  it  makes  him 
right  with  the  law,  it  assumes  to  treat  him  as  righteous; 
it  is  not  an  infused  righteousness,  but  a  judicial  righteous- 
ness on  the  ground  of  something  done  for  him.  It  is  not 
mere  pardon,  but  includes  pardon. 

These  things  must  be  embraced  in  the  meaning  of 
this  forensic  justification:  viz.  acquittal,  pardon  and 
acceptance. 

If  justification  were  nothing  more  than  pardon,  and 
salvation  dependent  on  subsequent  character  and  works, 
then  justification  would  not  be  a  ground  of  assurance  and 
therefore  not  a  ground  of  peace,  since  salvation  would  still 
be  entirely  uncertain  and  would  rest  upon  a  shifting 
foundation.  Acquittal  and  acceptance  are  as  necessary  as 
pardon  for  the  peace  of  justification. 

The  objection  is  raised  that  pardon  and  acquittal  are 
incompatible,  that  in  human  jurisprudence  if  a  man  is 
pardoned  he  is  not  acquitted  and  if  acquitted  he  needs  no 
pardon. 

The  cases  are  not  parallel.  In  human  tribunals  if  a 
criminal  is  pardoned  justice  is  not  exacted,  it  is  simply 
set  aside,  but  in  divine  government,  justice  cannot  be  set 
aside,  the  demands  of  the  law  can  never  be  abrogated  nor 
even  lowered.  God's  problem  in  saving  man  was  to  be 
just  and  justify  the  sinner  at  the  same  time — see  Rom.  3:26. 

In  human  tribunals  acquittal  means  the  discharge  of 
the  innocent;  in  justification  it  means  the  discharge  of  the 

— 196 — 


guilty.     Justice  must  be  done  and  pardon  extended;  and 
both  are  involved  in  the  justification  of  the  sinner,  and  in 
this  case  are  compatible, 
(b)   Proof. 

Is  this  a  true  conception  of  justification?  That  is  an 
important  question,  and  all  the  world  is  not  agreed  upon 
it.  That  this  is  the  Scriptural  view  of  justification  appears 
from  the  following"  considerations: — 

ist.  The  Greek  verb  dikaioo,  to  justify-,  has  a  forensic 
or  judicial  sense  in  the  New  Testament.  Whatever  may 
be  true  in  the  classics,  the  New  Testament  usus  loquendi 
is  sufficiently  clear.  Observe  its  forensic  usage  and  the 
impossibility  of  a  subjective,  sense  in  the  following  pas- 
sages:— 

Matt.    11:19.     But  wisdom   is   justified   of  her  children. 

Matt.  12:37.  By  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified  and  by  thy 
words  thou  shalt  be  condemned. 

Luke   7:29.      The   publicans   justified   God. 

Luke    10:29.     But   he   willing   to   justify   himself  said: 

Luke  16:15.     Ye  are   they  which  justify  yourselves  before  men. 

Acts  13:39.  By  him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things 
from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses. 

Rom.  3:4.     That  thou   mightest  be  justified  in  thy  sayings. 

Rom.  3:28.  We  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  with- 
out the  deeds  of  the  law. 

Gal.  2:16.  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of 
the  law  but  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  for  by  the  works  of  the  law 
shall  no  flesh  be  justified. 

Jas.  2:25.  Was  not  Rahab  the  harlot  justified  by  works  when 
she  had  received  the  messengers  and  had  sent  them  out  another 
way? 

Old  Testament  passages  used  in  the  same  way: — 
Job  9:20.     If  I  justify,   tsadaq,  myself  my  own  mouth  shall  con- 
demn me. 

Job.  32:2.     Because  he  justified  himself  rather  than  God. 
Is.   5:23.     Which  justify  the  wicked   for  reward. 

In  all  these  passages  the  word  justify  means  to  PRO- 
NOUNCE righteous  or  to  ACQUIT  and  not  to  MAKE 
inherently  righteous  or  holy. 

2nd.  If  justify  were  used  in  the  subjective  sense  of 
making  holy,  then  it  would  be  possible  to  substitute  the 
word  "sanctify"  for  justify  in  the  passages  where  dikaioo 
is  used. 

This  would  not  make  sense. 

3rd.  The  New  Testament  distinguishes  between  justi- 
fication and  sanctification.     See  I.  Cor.  6:11. 

4th.  The  word  justify  is  the  antithesis  of  condemn  in 
Rom.  8:33,  34.  It  is  God  that  Justifieth,  who  is  he  that 
condemneth? 

As  condemn  does  not  mean  to  MAKE  sinful,  so  to 
justif^^  is  not  to  MAKE  hol^'. 

—197— 


Section  III.     The  ground  of  Justification. 

What  is  that  in  consideration  of  which  God  acquits 
the  sinner? 

1.  The  Roman  CathoHc  says  that  while  faith  leads  to 
baptism  with  its  infused  grace,  the  final  ground  of  justifi- 
cation is  good  works.  It  is  easy  to  see  what  an  imperfect 
ground  of  acquittal  this  is,  how  insufficient  for  assurance 
and  peace,  and  how  purgatory  is  a  natural  sequence  to 
such  incompleteness. 

2.  The  older  Arminians  made  faith  the  ground  of 
justification.  The\'  taught  that  the  perfect  obedience  re- 
quired by  the  law  is  set  aside  in  the  gospel  and  that  God 
is  pleased  to  take  our  faith  in  lieu  of  it,  or  to  count  our 
faith  in  the  room  of  righteousness. 

The  Wesleyan  Arminians  differ  somewhat  from  this. 
They  define  justification  to  mean  pardon,  and  this  pardon 
to  proceed  on  the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ; 
but  subsequent  acceptance  with  God  is  based  on  evangel- 
ical obedience,  or  obedience  of  faith. 

3.  The  view  of  the  "New  Theology"  may  be  fairly 
represented  by  Horace  Bushnell.  This  view  repudiates  all 
expiation  of  guilt  by  sacrifice,  all  substitution,  all  imputa- 
tion of  Christ's  righteousness  or  the  transfer  of  Christ's 
merits  to  us.  A  man  is  justified,  using  the  word  in  the 
sense  of  acquittal,  on  the  ground  of  his  own  righteousness 
as  he  is  incited  to  a  righteous  life  by  the  example  and 
inspiration  of  Jesus  Christ.  Christ  is  in  the  world  to  be  a 
"power  on  character,"  and  thus  "invest  the  guilty  souls  of 
mankind  in  the  righteousness  of  God."  "The  soul  when  it 
is  gained  to  faith,  is  brought  back,  according  to  the  degree 
of  faith,  into  its  original,  normal  relation  to  God;  to  be 
invested  with  God's  light,  feeling,  character,  righteous- 
ness, and  live  derivately  (derivatively)  from  Him." 

Justification  in  this  view  is  the  restoration  of  man  to 
his  normal  relation  of  faith  in  God,  but  the  ground  of  his 
acquittal  is  the  righteousness  inwrought  in  his  character. 

4.  The  Reformed,  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  view  is 
that  we  are  justified  on  the  ground  of  the  imputed  right- 
eousness of  Christ. 

(a)   Statement. 

Our  Shorter  Catechism  says  God  "accepteth  us  as 
righteous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
imputed  to  us."  Christ  expiated  our  guilt,  satisfied  the 
law,  both  by  obedience  and  suffering,  became  our  substi- 

—198— 


tute,  so  that  being  united  to  him  by  faith,  his  death  be- 
comes our  death,  his  righteousness  our  righteousness,  his 
obedience  our  obedience. 

God  acquits  us  not  for  anything  in  usi,  not  for  any- 
thing so  imperfect  as  human  faith,  works,  or  merit,  but 
for  the  perfect  and  all-sufficient  righteousness  of  Christ 
set  to  our  account. 

Dr.  Shedd  remarks:  "Because  Christ  has  suffered  the 
penalty  for  the  believer,  he  is  pronounced  righteous  before 
the  law  in  respect  to  its  penalty;  and  is  entitled  to  release 
from  punishment.  Because  Christ  has  perfectly  obeyed 
the  law  for  him,  he  is  pronounced  righteous  before  the 
law  in  respect  to  its  precept;  and  is  entitled  to  the  reward 
promised  to  perfect  obedience." 

This  affords  a  sure  ground  of  acquittal,  a  valid  basis 
for  assurance,  peace  and  joy.  Nothing  can  invalidate  a 
justification  based  on  a  perfect  righteousness. 

(b)   Proof. 

That  this  is  the  true  doctrine  appears  as  follows:  It 
is  proved  by  the  whole  system  of  substitutionary  sacrifices 
in  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  which  were  types  of 
Christ's  atoning  death.  It  is  proved  by  all  those  passages 
which  speak  of  Christ  as  a  ransom,  a  substitute,  as  dying 
in  our  stead,  as  bearing  our  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust, 
made  sin  for  us,  made  a  curse  for  us,  etc.,  etc.  It  is 
stated  in 

Isaiah  53:5.  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon 
him  and  by  his  stripes  we  are  healed. 

Is.  53:11.  By  his  knowledg"e  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify 
many  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities. 

II.  Cor.  5:21.  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us  who  knew 
no  sin;   that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in   him. 

Rom.  4:6.  Unto  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without 
works. 

Rom.  5:18.  By  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon 
all  men,  unto  justification  of  life. 

Rom.  5:19,  By  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made 
righteous. 

Phil.  3:9,  And  be  found  in  him  not  having  mine  own  righteous- 
ness which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of 
Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith. 

Col.  1:14,  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood. 

Col.   1:20, — having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross. 

Col.  1:22,  In  the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death,  to  present  you 
holy  and  unblamable  and  unreprovable  in   his  sight. 

Section  IV.  The  means,  condition,  or  instrumental 
cause  of  justification  is  faith.  Faith  is  the  instrumental, 
not  the  efficient  or  meritorious  cause  of  justification. 

—199— 


Faith  is  the  Hnk,  the  bond,  the  nexus  between  the 
believer  and  Christ.  Faith  is  not  the  ground  of  justifica- 
tion because  the  believer's  faith  is  an  imperfect  thing;  it 
expiates  no  guilt,  removes  no  penalty;  is  not  of  the  nature 
of  an  atonement. 

But  faith  unites  us  to  Christ  and  union  with  Christ 
results  in  justification. 

Rom.  5:1,  Being  justified  by  faith. 

Phil.  3:9,  The  rig-hteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith — "of  God" 
as  the  source;  "by  faith"  as  the  instrument. 

Rom.  3:28,  We  conclude  therefore  that  a  man  is  justified  by 
faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law. 

Rom.  3:30, — justify  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and  uncircum- 
cision   through   faith. 

James  does  not  contradict  Paul  when  he  says, 
2:21,    Was    not   Abraham    our   father,    justified   by   works?      And 

2:24,  ye  see   then  how  that  by  works  a  man   is  justified  and  not  by 

faith   only. 

James  is  not  discussing  the  nature  of  justification  but 
the  nature  of  true  faith.  He  is  opposing  anti-nomianism; 
he  is  exposing  a  spurious  faith;  he  is  showing  the  relation 
of  faith  and  works;  he  is  showing'  that  we  are  justified 
only  by  such  a  faith  as  bring"s  forth  good  works.  A  work- 
ing" faith  as  against  a  dead  faith. 

We  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  but  not  by  a  faith  that 
is  alone. 

In  the  passag"es  Rom.  4:3  and  James  2:23  where  it  is 
said  that  Abraham's  faith  was  counted  unto  him  for  rigfht- 
eousness,  the  preposition  in  the  original  shows  that  it  does 
not  mean  faith  instead  of  righteousness  or  faith  a  substi- 
tute for  righteousness. 

Section  V.    The  Effect  of  Justification. 

(a)  The  Roman  Catholic  believes  that  the  justifica- 
tion that  results  from  baptism  restores  the  soul  to  its  state 
of  original  righteousness,  so  that  nothing  of  the  nature  of 
sin  remains  in  the  soul.  However  the  soul  thus  justified  is 
not  indefectible,  but  is  liable  to  sin. 

(b)  The  Reformed  confessions  teach  that  justification 
results  in: — 

Remission  of  sin. 
Acceptance  with  God. 
Title  to  eternal  life. 
Increase  of  grace  unto  sanctification. 
Peace   with    God.      "Being   justified   we   have   peace." 
Whether  that  peace  is  subjective  in  the  experience  of  the 

— 200^ — 


believer,  or  objective  in  a  condition  of  peace  between  God 
and  man  or  both. 

Moreover  good  works  follow  on  justification  as  the 
result  and  evidence  of  saving  faith. 

Section  VI.     Difficulties  and  Objections. 

(a)  To  pronounce  a  man  just  when  he  is  not  just  is  to 
enipty  the  transaction  of  all  moral  value.  This  proceeds 
upon  the  ground  that  a  man  must  be  justified  on  account 
of  his  personal  holiness,  a  condition  which  no  man  can 
fulfill. 

It  is  Christ  who  meets  the  demands  of  the  law  and  on 
the  ground  of  his  righteousness  only  can  man  be  declared 
just. 

But  the  moral  values  are  not  wanting,  for  justification 
is  inseparable  from  sanctification. 

While  Protestant  theology  distinguishes  between  what 
Christ  does  for  us  and  what  he  does  in  us,  the  two  are 
united  and  inseparable  in  fact.  The  relation  of  justifica- 
tion to  regeneration  and  sanctification  delivers  it  from 
any  charge  of  moral  emptiness  or  fictitious  procedure. 
Justification  is  possible  because  it  is  always  accompanied 
by  regeneration,  and  union  with  Christ  and  is  followed  by 
sanctification. 

(b)  How  is  acquittal  from  the  penalty  of  the  law  con- 
sistent with  remaining  and  actual  sin  in  heart  and  life 
which  would  seem  to  demand  a  penalty  for  each  trans- 
gression? 

It  is  the  promise  and  pledge  of  ultimate  victory  over 
sin.  Christ  bore  the  penalty  prospectively  as  well  as 
otherwise  and  justification  has  a  prospective  force  toward 
an  end  not  yet  reached. 

The  grace  of  God  implanted,  and  the  indwelling  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  vouchsafed  to  believers  will  dominate  and 
extirpate  the  remains  of  human  depravity.  It  must  be 
written  large:  Justification  and  sanctification  are  insep- 
arable. 


— 201 — 


Chapter  XII.     Sanctification. 

Section  I.     Difference  between  Justification  and  Sanc- 
tification. 

1.  One  an  act,  the  other  a  work. 

2.  One  declarator}',  the  other  experiential. 

3.  One  done  for  us,  the  other  done  in  us. 

4.  One   chang'es  our  relation   to   the   law,   the  other 
chang"es  our  character. 

5.  One  based  on  Christ's  righteousness,  other  the  se- 
quence of  regeneration. 

Section  II.    Definition. 

1.  Greek  word  has  two  meanings — to  purify, — to  con- 
secrate, or  set  apart. 

2.  Catechism  question,  35.    What  is  Sanctification? 

Section  III.    A  supernatural  work. 

1.  Referred  to  God  as  agent. 

r.  Thess.  5:23,  The  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly. 
Heb.   13:20-21,  The  God  of  peace  that  broug'ht. 
Titus  2:14,  He  gave  himself — 'that — purify  unto  himself  a  pecu- 
liar people. 

Ephes.  5:25 — that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it. 

2.  We  are  taught  to  pray  for  Sanctification. 

Ephes.   1:15-23.     Paul   prays  for   their  sanctification. 

3.  Union  of  Christ  and  believers  shows  it. 

Jno.    15:4,  As   the  branch  cannot  bear   fruit  of  itself,   except  it 
abide  in  the  vine,  no  more  can  ye  except  ye  abide  in  me. 

Section  IV.    Agency  and  Means. 

1.  God,  all  three  persons,  especially  the  Spirit. 

2.  Faith,  as  uniting  us  to  Christ. 

3.  Truth. 

Jno.   17:17,   Sanctify  them  by  thy  truth,  thy  word  is  truth. 

Acts    20:32, — the    word    of    his    grace    which    is    able    to    build 
you  up. 

— 202 — 


II.  Tim.  3:15, — Holy  Scriptures  which  are  able  to  make  thee 
wise,  etc. 

Jas.  1:21, — the  implanted  word  which  is  able  to  save  your  souls. 

4.  All  the  means  of  grace,  Cat.  88,  89. 

5.  Is  man  co-operative  in  sanctification? 

Section  V.    Effect. 

1.  To  make  holy. 

2.  By  growth,  rather  than  instantaneously. 
Cat.  35,  37.     Ephes.  2:21.     I.  Pet.  2:2.     II.  Pet.  3:18. 

3.  Perfected  at  death. 

Cat.  37.     Lk.  23:43.     Rev.  21:27. 

Section  VI.     Perfectionism. 

1.  Pelagian  view. 

(a)  Man  suffered  no  real  loss  by  the  Fall.  No  original 
sin,  no  inherent  corruption,  no  loss  of  ability.  Man  can 
now  render  complete  obedience  to  the  law  by  his  natural 
powers  and  the  grace  of  Christ. 

(b)  Grace  is  the  goodness  of  God  in  giving  us  such 
ability,  example  and  precepts  of  Christ,  natural  environ- 
ment, and  natural  influence  of  the  truth. 

(c)  Sin  is  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law. 

(d)  God  cannot  demand  what  man  is  not  able  to  do. 

(e)  Man  can  do  all  that  God  requires;  therefore  can 
live  perfectly. 

Observe: — Based  on  denial  of  any  real  fall,  and  on  a 
wrong  conception  of  sin. 

2.  Romish  view. 

(a)  Baptism  cleanses  from  all  sin,  yet  liable  to  fall 
into  sin  again. 

But  there  are  two  kinds  of  sins:    mortal,  and  venial. 
Man  by  grace  may  avoid  mortal  sin;  but  never  free 
from  venial  sins. 

(b)  The  law  which  men  may  keep  is  not  the  law  in 
all  its  strictness  but  the  law  which  man  is  capable  of 
keeping;  for  God  can  not  justly  demand  more  than  man 
can  do,  or  what  is  due  from  man  in  his  present  circum- 
stances. 

(c)  They  distinguish  between  positive  precepts  and 
counsels  of  Christ.  May  do  some  things  not  required  for 
salvation,  thus  do  works  of  supererogation,  and  lay  up  a 
reservoir  of  merit  from  which  the  church  may  draw  for 
others'  benefit. 

—203— 


3.  Arminian  View,  Wesleyan. 

(a)  The  law  that  man  can  keep  is  not  the  original 
law  of  perfect  obedience,  not  the  original  moral  law;  but 
a  law  suited  to  the  debilitated  state  of  man  since  the  fall, 
called  the  law  of  Christ. 

(b)  Sin.    All  imperfection  is  not  sin. 

Wesley    says:      "Some    deviations    and    transgressions 
need  atonement;  but  are  not  sin.    I  do  not  call  these  sin." 
Observe:    If  not  sin  they  need  no  atonement. 

(c)  Such  perfection  as  is  claimed  is  attributed,  prop- 
erly enough,  to  supernatural  grace. 

Observe: — 

(i)   Some  misinterpret  texts,  e.g.  I.  John  3:9. 

(2)  Some  unduly  exalt  human  ability. 

(3)  All  minimize  the  nature  of  sin. 

(4)  All  lower  the  demands  of  the  law. 
Illustration.      Difference    between    Perfectionist    and 

others. 

One  rears  a  ladder  100  ft.,  climbs  to  the  top,  and  says: 
I  have  reached  the  top. 

Another  rears  his  ladder  to  infinity,  climbs  100  ft.  and 
says:  I'm  not  to  the  top  yet.  Climbs  1000  ft.  and  says: 
I'm  not  to  the  top  yet. 

4.  True  View. 

(a)  Imperfect  in  this  life. 

Cat.  82.  Is  any  man  able  perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments 
of  God? 

Rom.  7:15-25. 

I.  John  1:8.     If  we  say  we  have  no  sin  we  deceive  ourselves  etc. 
Prayer  of  everj'  man  should  be:     God  be  merciful  to 
me  a  sinner,     e.g.  Paul. 

(b)  All  unrighteousness  is  sin.     Cat.  14. 

(c)  The  fall  destroj^ed  man's  ability;  but  not  his 
oblig'ation. 

(d)  God's  law  is  absolute  perfection,  and  there  can  be 
no  lowering  of  it. 

Matt.   5:48.     Mk.    12:30-31.     Thou   shalt   love   the   Lord,   etc. 
Can  we   do  it?     No.     Law  drives  us   to  Christ — is   a 
school-master. 

(e)  Practical  duty.  Not  discourage  effort.  Strive  for 
holiness.  Without  holiness  no  man  etc.  Can't  get  holj'' 
too  much;  nor  too  soon. 


— 204 — 


Chapter  XIII.     Perseverance. 

Section  I.    Statement. 

1.  Cat.  36.  What  are  the  benefits  which  accompany 
or  flow,  etc. 

2.  Conf.  of  Faith.  They  whom  God  hatli  accepted  in 
his  beloved,  effectively  called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit, 
can  neither  totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of 
grace;  but  shall  certainly  persevere  therein  to  the  end  and 
be  eternally  saved. 

Section  II.     Proof. 
1. 

Jno.   10:28-29,   They   shall   never  perish,   etc. 

Rom.  11:29,  For  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without 
repentance. 

Phil.  1:6.  He  who  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will  perfect 
it  unto  the  day  of  Christ. 

I.  Pet.  1:5,  Who  are  kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith 
unto  salvation. 

2.  A  necessary  inference  from  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion. 

Rom.  8:30.  Whom  he  did  predestinate  them  he  also  called,  etc. 
Even  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  election  on  the  ground 
of  foreseen  faith  requires  perseverance  in  faith  of  all  the 
elect.  They  must  posit  the  perseverance  of  the  faith  be- 
fore they  posit  the  election  for  that  is  their  ground  of 
election. 

3.  It  is  implied  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  in  which 
the  Father  gave  a  people  to  his  Son. 

Jno.  17:6, — the  men  that  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the  world,  thine 
they  were,  and  thou  gavest  them  me;  and  they  have  kept  thy  word. 

4.  Iinplied  in  the  union  of  Christ  and  believers. 

Rom.  8:1.     There  is  now  no  condemnation  etc. 
Rom.  8:35.     What  shall  separate  us?  etc. 

5.  Implied  in  the  Atonement. 
Christ  purchased  his  people. 

Matt.   20:28, — gave  his  life   a  ransom. 

Section  III.     Objections. 

Ezek.  18:25,  When  the  righteous  turneth  away  from  his  right- 
eousness. 

Matt.   13:20-21,  Stony  ground. 

— 205 — 


Heb.   6:4-6, — imposible — if   they   fall   away   to   renew   them   again 
unto  repentance. 

Heb.   10:26,  If  sin  wilfully  no  longer  a  sin-offering. 
I.  Cor.  9:27.     Lest  I  myself  should  be  a  castaway. 

Section  IV.    Answer  to  Objections. 

1.  Some  of  these  statements  may  refer  to  those  not 
regenerate. 

2.  Some  are  hypothetical  warning's  to  prevent  back- 
sliding* or  to  show  the  dreadful  guilt  and  dang-er  of  neg- 
lecting" truth  and  common  grace. 

3.  Even  the  regenerate  may  backslide  for  a  time, 
without  being  lost. 


— 206- 


Chapter  XIV.    The  Sacraments. 

Section  I.     Def.    Cat.  92.    What  is  a  Sacrament? 

No  definition  of  a  sacrament  given  in  New  Testament. 
Assume    knowledg'e    of    Old    Testament    and    verbal 
instruction. 

Section  II.     Efficacy  of  the  sacraments, 

1.  Roman  View. 

(a)  Sacraments  contain  the  grace  which  they  signify. 

(b)  They  convey  that  grace  "ex  opere  operato." 
The  sacraments  are  charged  or  loaded  with  grace  and 

administered  by  an  authorized  celebrant  must  convey  the 
grace  inherent  in  them. 

The  administrator  must  intend  to  produce  the  effect 
which  the  sacrament  is  designed  to  accomplish. 

2.  Lutheran  view. 

(a)  Necessity  of  faith  on  part  of  recipient. 

Yet  faith  not  the  power  in  the  sacrament,  e.g.  dry 
wood  burns  with  g'reat  power,  yet  dryness  is  not  the  power 
that  burns  the  wood.  Woman  with  issue  must  have  faith 
yet  her  faith  not  the  efficient  cause  of  her  healing. 

(b)  The  virtue  of  the  sacrament  is  inherent  in  itself. 
Consubstantiation  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Approaches  the  Romish  view. 

3.  Zwinglian  view. 

(a)  Sacraments  are  memorials  like  the  rainbow,  or 
the  pile  of  stones  on  bank  of  the  Jordan. 

(b)  Are  badges  of  men's  profession. 

(c)  Not  means  of  grace  in  any  special  sense. 
Said  that  Zwingli  has  been  misunderstood. 

4.  Calvinistic  view. 

(a)  Symbols  of  truth  or  facts  of  redemption.  "Repre- 
sent." 

(b)  Signs  and  seals  of  a  covenant.     "Seal." 

(c)  Channels  of  grace.     "Apply." 

(d)  Efficacy  not  in  them,  nor  in  administrator,  but 
through  them  the  Spirit  conveys  grace  to  them  who  exer- 
cise true  faith. 

Catechism  91,  How  do  the  sacraments  become  effect- 
ual means  of  salvation? 

The  sacraments  become  effectual  means  of  salvation, 

—207— 


not  by  any  virtue  in  them,  nor  in  him  that  doth  adminis- 
ter them;  but  only  by  the  blessing  of  Christ  and  the  work- 
ing of  his  Spirit  in  them  that  by  faith  receive  them. 

Section  III.    Number. 

There  are  two  sacraments:  Baptism,  and  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

The  Roman  Church  makes  seven:  Baptism,  Lord's 
Supper,  Confirmation,  Orders,  Marriage,  Penance  inclu- 
ding absolution,  Extreme  Unct., 

Section  IV.    Baptism.    Cat.  94.    What  is  Baptism? 

1.  Mode. — Immersion  or  Sprinkling. 

The  classical  usage  of  the  word  Baptizo,  often  means 
immersion  but  not  always  so. 

The  word  used  about  90  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
therefore  a  New  Testament  usage. 

(a)  Passages  where  it  may  mean  to  dip. 
Lk.   16:24, — -dip   tip  of  finger. 

Jno.    13:26, — dipped   a   sop. 
Mk.   7:4,  Washing  pots,   cups   and  vessels. 
But  mentions  couches  or  tables  and  also  themselves. 

(b)  Passages  doubtful. 

Matt.  3:16, — away  from   (apo)    the  water. 

Acts  8:38-39, — into   (eis)   the  water;   and  out  of  (ek)    the  water. 
Matt.     3:11,     I    indeed    baptize    you    with    water    but    He    shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire. 

Rom.  6:4,  Buried  with  him   by  baptism  into  death. 
Col.   2:12,  Buried  with  him  in  baptism. 

(c)  Passages  where  immersion  is  most  improbable. 
Acts  2:41,  were  baptized  about  3000  souls. 

Acts  9:17-18,   Paul,   and  arose   and  was  baptized. 
Acts   16:33,   Jailer  of  Philippi. 
Acts   10:47-48,  Cornelius  and  all  in  his  house. 
I.   Cor.   10:1-2,   Moses   and  Israel   in   the  sea. 

Old  Testament  purifications  sometimes  by  dipping 
but  usually  by  sprinkling  as  on  the  Mercy  Seat  and  on  the 
door  posts,  etc. 

Early  baptismal  fonts  have  been  found  and  they  are 
too  small  for  baptism  by  immersion. 

2.  Subjects  of  Baptism. 

Cat.  95.     To  whom  is  baptism  to  be  administered? 

(a)  Adults, — who  profess  faith  and  promise  obedience. 

(b)  Infants  of  professing  believers. 
Must  they  be  church  members? 

Rome  baptizes  all  as  being  necessary  to  salvation.. 

—208— 


3.  Proof  of  infant  baptisni. 

(a)  Old  Testament  covenant  included  infants.  See 
God's  covenant  with  Abraham.     Gen.  17:7-11. 

(b)  The  church  is  one  and  the  same  in  all  dispensa- 
tions and  if  infants  were  included  in  the  old  covenant, 
must  be  now. 

(c)  Whole  households  were  baptized. 

Acts  16:15,  Household  of  Lydia. 

Acts   16:33,  Jailer  of  Philippi   and  all   his. 

I.  Cor.  1:16,  Paul  baptized  the  household  of  Stephanos. 

(d)  Tertullian  and  Origen  speak  of  infant  baptism  as 
the  prevailing  usage  of  the  church  and  as  having  been 
practiced  from  the  beginning. 

(e)  As  children  need  and  are  capable  of  receiving  the 
benefits  of  redemption  they  may  receive  the  sign  of  the 
same. 

(f)  The  covenants  of  the  parents  involve  the  children. 

4.  Efficacy  of  Baptism. 

(a)  Roman  view.  Efficacious  unto  salvation.  A  sine 
qua  non. 

(b)  Anglican   view.     Baptismal   Regeneration. 

(c)  Lutheran  view.  Efficacious  if  unresisted.  Infants 
are  incapable  of  resisting,  and  baptism  efficacious  to 
them;  but  may  be  forfeited  by  neglect,  unbelief,  or  bad 
conduct  in  after  life. 

(d)  Calvinistic  and  Reformed  view.  Sign  and  seal  of 
a  covenant. 

The  important  thing  is  the  covenant. 

Section  V.     The  Lord's  Supper. 

1.     The  elements. 

(a)  Romish  view.  Transubstantiation.  The  bread  be- 
comes flesh  and  the  wine  becomes  blood  by  the  consecra- 
tion by  the  priest. 

Remains  permanently  so. 

Has  the  appearance  of  bread,  but  the  senses  not  qual- 
ified to  judge. 

Communication  in  one  element, — bread. 

Must  be  unleavened  bread. 

The  whole  Christ  is  in  every  atom  of  the  elements,  so 
that  the  bread  in  itself  conveys  both  flesh  and  blood. 

The  soul  is  inseparable  from  the  body,  and  the  divin- 
ity from  the  soul;  so  that  partaking'  of  the  body  is  par- 
taking of  Christ. 

(b)  The  Lutheran  view. 

Consubstantiation.    This  is  temporary,  confined  to  the 

— 209 — 


sacramental  occasion.  Afterwards  the  elements  are  com- 
mon bread  and  wine.  The  glorified  body  of  Christ  par- 
talces  of  the  infinity  and  omnipresence  of  his  divine 
nature,  so  everywhere  present  and  inexhaustible.  The 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  may  thus  be  received  by  believer 
and  unbeliever  alike,  but  of  benefit  only  to  the  former. 

(c)   The  Reformed  view. 

The  elements  are  simply  bread  and  wine. 

They  represent  the  body  and  blood  in  a  symbolical 
way. 

The  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  is  not  in  the 
elements  but  in  the  heart  of  the  believer. 

Partaking-  of  the  bread  and  wine  signifies  spiritual 
participation  in  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  or  atone- 
ment. 

2.     The  nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

(a)  Romish  view.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  both  a  sacra- 
ment and  a  sacrifice.  As  a  sacrament,  opere  operato,  it 
nourishes  the  soul  by  the  actual  substance  of  Christ  eaten 
and  drunk. 

As  a  sacrifice  Christ  is  really  offered  anew  for  the 
expiation  of  sin;  thus  repeating  the  work  done  on  the 
cross. 

(b)  Reformed  view. 

Catechism  96.    What  is  the  Lord's  Supper? 

A  memorial. 

A  badge  of  profession. 

Exhibits  the  great  facts  of  the  atonement  in  Christ's 
death. 

The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  not  received  corpo- 
really; but  what  Christ  did  by  his  body  and  blood  is  re- 
ceived by  those  who  partake  in  faith. 

The  sacrament  signifies,  seals,  and  conveys  the  ben- 
efits of  redemption. 

Participation  is  a  profession  and  renewal  of  covenant 
vows  with  Christ.     A  solemn  and  vital  act. 


-2I( 


PART  FOURTH. 

ESCHATOLOGY. 

Index  Page. 

Chapter         I.     THE  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL. 

Chapter       II.     THE  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  IMMEDI- 
ATELY AFTER  DEATH. 

Chapter      III.     THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BO-DY. 

Chapter      IV.     THE  IDENTITY  OF  THE  RESURREC- 
TION BODY. 

Chapter       V.     THE  SECOND  ADVENT. 

Section  I.     A  Matter  of  Prophecy. 

Section        II.     Christ  Will  Come  Ag"ain. 

Section       III.     Events  That  Will  Precede  the  Second 
Coming". 

Section       IV.     The  Man  of  Sin. 

Section        V.     Events  That  Will  Accompany  the  Sec- 
ond Coming". 

Section      VI.     Pre-Millennialism. 

Section     VII.     Post-Millennialism. 

Section   VIII.     Christ  Already  Come  and  Always  Pres- 
ent. 

vSection      IX.     The  Non-Millennial  View. 

Chapter      VI.     FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

Chapter    VII.     SECOND  PROBATION. 

Chapter  VIII.     HEAVEN. 

211  — 


PART  FOURTH:    ESCHATOLOGY. 

Eschatology  is  the  doctrine  of  last  things. 
It  embraces: 

Chapter  I.    The  Immortality  of  the  Soul. 
Section  I.     Denied  by  Materialism. 
Denied  by  Pantheism. 

Section  II.     Proof. 

1.  The  analogical  argument. 

The  metamorphosis  of  the  chrysalis.  The  rejuvenation 
of  earth  after  winter.  The  germination  of  the  buried 
seed,  etc. 

2.  Life's  aim  only  partly  attained  here,  and  immor- 
tality necessary  to  its  completion. 

3.  Virtue  must  be  rewarded  and  sin  punished.  The 
just  deserts  of  all  are  not  manifest  here,  and  hence  the 
moral  necessity  of  another  life. 

4.  The  consent  of  all  people.  The  belief  in  immortal- 
ity is  a  world-wide  and  age-long  belief. 

5.  Non-Christian  religions. 

(a)  Fetishism  possesses  a  belief  in  the  survival  of  the 
human  spirit.  Also  a  belief  in  evil  spirits  against  whom 
their  charms  were  a  supposed  protection. 

(b)  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  religion.  Accadian 
hymns.  Lay  of  Istar's  descent  to  Hades.  The  Epic  of 
Isdubar  or  Gilgames,  whether  legendary  or  historical, 
bears  witness  to  the  beliefs  of  those  who  wrote  and  read 
the  literature. 

(c)  Egyptian  religion.  The  Book  of  the  Dead.  Pres- 
ervation of  bodies. 

(d)  Hinduism  or  Brahmanism.  Vedic  literature  and 
Hindu  philosophy. 

(e)  Buddhism.      Transmigration.      Nirvana. 

(f)  Persian  religion.  Zoroastrianism.  Sacred  book, 
Avesta.  The  Persian  beliefs  were  strikingly  like  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  thought  in  many  particulars,  e.g.  the 
coming  of  a  prophet  or  Saviour,  raising  of  dead,  millennial 
stages,  brief  triumph  of  Ahriman,  general  judgment,  sep- 
aration of  evil  from  good,  purgatorial  fires,  restoration  of 
all,  blessed  immortality. 

— 212 — 


(g)  Greek  religion.  Homer  is  polytheistic,  Plato  mon- 
otheistic but  both  believed  in  life  after  death.  Socrates 
probably  did.  Aristotle  doubtful.  Greek  burial  rites  and 
monumental  decorations  express  belief  in  immortality, 
e.g".  the  coin  in  the  mouth  of  the  dead  to  pay  his  fare  over 
the  mystic  river,  the  carved  flame  ascending  heavenward, 
the  fadeless  wreath. 

(h)  Chinese  religion,  antedates  Confucius,  who  mod- 
ified it  somewhat,  rites  express  belief  in  immortality;  burn 
paper  utensils,  etc. 

(i)  North  American  Indians.  Belief  in  happy  hunting 
ground;  burial  of  bows,  arrows,  axes,  canoes,  etc. 

6.  Revealed  Religion. 

(a)  The  Hebrews  had  even  clearer  views  of  immor- 
tality than  the  nations  round  about  them.  It  is  sometimes 
said  that  the  Old  Testament  conceives  of  rewards  and 
punishments  as  bestowed  in  this  world.  True,  but  we  find 
here  a  view  of  another  life  as  well.  The  Old  Testament 
speaks  of  the  dead  being  gathered  to  their  fathers,  shows 
appearance  of  Samuel  to  Saul,  David's  hope  of  seeing  his 
child,  etc. 

Ps.  i6:ii.  In  thy  presence  is  fullness  of  joy;  at  thy  right  hand 
are  pleasures  forevermore. 

Ps.  17:15.  I  will  behold  thy  face  in  righteousness;  I  shall  be 
satisfied  when  I  awake  with  thy  likeness. 

Ps.  48:14.     This  God  is  our  God  forever  and  forever. 

Ps.  73:24-26.  Thou  shalt  guide  me  with  thy  counsel  and  after- 
ward receive  me  to  glory,  etc. 

Is.  26:19.  Thy  dead  men  shall  live;  together  with  my  dead  body 
shall    they  arise. 

Dan.  12:2.  Many  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall 
awake;  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting 
contempt. 

(b)  New  Testament  Proof. 

The  doctrine  of  immortality  is  on  nearly  every  page 
of  the  New  Testament. 

Jno.  3:16.     Shall  never  perish  but  have  everlasting  life. 
Jno.   14:2,  3.     I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you,   that  where  I  am 
ye  may  be  also. 

Lk.  23:43.     Today  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise. 

Every  reference  to  the  resurrection  is  a  proof  of 
immortality. 

Too  many  references  to  quote.  The  whole  system 
involves  this  doctrine. 

7.  If  immortality  be  not  true  we  are  imposed  upon  in 
the  very  constitution  of  our  nature,  and  all  life  is  an 
insoluble  mystery. 

—213— 


8.  Claims  of  communications  from  departed  spirits 
are  not  sufficiently  authenticated  to  furnish  a  dependable 
argument. 

Section  III.    Conditional  Immortality. 

This  is  the  belief  that  immortality  is  conditioned  on 
regeneration  and  that  there  is  no  immortality  apart  from 
spiritual  life.  Spiritual  life  is  indeed  conditioned  on 
regeneration;  but  a  consistent  theology  does  not  identify 
the  specific  terms  spiritual  life  and  eternal  life  with 
spiritual  existence  and  eternal  existence. 

A  fundamental  postulate  of  Russelism  is  that  the  soul 
is  not  inherently  immortal;  from  this  it  goes  on  to  argue 
a  conditional  immortality. 

This  is  to  be  met  by  a  denial  of  the  premise  and 
further  by  citing  ample  Scriptural  proof  to  the  contrary. 


Chapter  II.  The  State  of  the  Soul  Immediately  after  Death. 

1.  Materialism  says:     It  ceases  to  be. 

2.  Pantheism  and  Christian  Science  teach  that  it 
returns  to  the  reservoir  of  being  from  which  it  arose. 

3.  Some  say  the  soul  sleeps  till  the  resurrection. 

4.  Some  say  it  goes  to  an  intermediate  place.  Purga- 
tory. Limbus  Patrum.  Limbus  Infantum.  Paradise.  Dis- 
tinguish between  an  intermediate  place,  and  state. 

5.  The  Bible  teaches  that  it  enters  on  its  eternal 
reward  or  punishment. 

(a)  Lk.  16:19-31.  "Parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus. 

(b)  II.  Cor.  5:8.  Absent  from  the  body  and  present 
with  the  Lord. 

(c)  Lk.  23:43.  Today  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in 
paradise. 

Paradise  is  not  a  middle  place  but  heaven. 

11.  Cor.  12:4.  Caught  up  into  paradise  and  heard  unspeakable 
words. 

Rev.  2:7.     The  tree  of  life  which  is  in  the  paradise  of  God. 

Rev.  22:1,  2.  And  he  showed  me  a  river  of  water  of  life  bright 
as  crystal  proceeding  out  of  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb. 
In  the  midst  of  its  street  and  on  either  side  of  the  river  was  a  tree 
of  life. 

The  tree  of  life  is  in  paradise.  The  tree  of  'life  is  in 
heaven.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  paradise  is 
heaven. 

— 214 — 


Catechism  37,  What  benefits  do  believers  receive  from 
Christ  at  death?  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death 
made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into 
glory;  and  their  bodies,  being  still  united  to  Christ,  do 
rest  in  their  graves  till  the  resurrection. 


Chapter  III.    The  Resurrection. 

1.  Some  say  that  it  nieans  only  that  the  soul  rises 
to  a  higher  state.  Mk.  12:26.  Christ  proves  to  the  Saddu- 
cees  that  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  still  live.  Said  that 
this  proves  no  resurrection  of  the  body  but  only  immor- 
tality of  the  soul. 

But  the  Sadducees  denied  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
and  on  that  ground  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
Christ  cut  at  the  root  of  their  unbelief. 

2.  Swedenborgians  teach  that  man  has  two  bodies, 
an  external  and  an  internal,  a  material  and  a  psychical. 
The  external  body  dies  and  is  buried  and  never  rises 
again;  but  the  internal  body  passes  with  the  soul  into  the 
heavenly  state  and  that  is  the  only  resurrection. 

I.  Cor.  15:44.  There  is  a  natural  body  and  there  is  a  spiritual 
body. 

II.  Cor.  5:1.     have  a  building  of  God. 

3.  A  bodily  resurrection. 

(a)  Only  that  can  be  resurrected  that  had  been  bur- 
ied. The  word  implies  previous  burial.  Cannot  be  said 
of  soul. 

(b)  Christ's  resurrection  was  bodily,  therefore  all 
others  the  same. 

(c)  Proof  texts. 

Dan,  12:2.     Many  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake. 

Is.  26:19.  Thy  dead  men  shall  live;  together  with  my  dead  body 
shall   they   arise. 

Rom.  8:12.  He  that  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also 
quicken    your    mortal    bodies. 

Phil.  3:21.  Who  shall  change  our  vile  body  that  it  may  be 
fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body. 

I.  Cor.   15:42-44.     Sown  in  corruption,  etc. 

Jno.  5:28.     All  that  are  in  their  graves,  etc. 

Jno.  6:39,  40,  44.     Raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 

(d)  It  takes  both  body  and  soul  to  constitute  our 
complete  personality;  and  Christ's  redemption  of  us  in- 
volves the  redemption  of  our  bodies.  The  fall  involved 
man's  body  and  redemption  will  not  stop  short  of  the 
entire  restoration  of  all  that  was  lost. 

—215— 


(e)   Resurrection  no  more  incredible  than  birth. 

Dr.  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  p.  649,  says:  "It  is  no 
more  strange  that  the  human  body  should  exist  a  second 
time  than  that  it  should  exist  the  first  time.  That  a  full- 
formed  human  body  should  be  produced  from  a  micro- 
scopic cell  is  as  difficult  to  believe  as  that  a  spiritual  resur- 
rection-body should  be  produced  out  of  the  natural  earthly 
body.  The  marvels  of  embrj^ology  are,  a  priori,  as  incred- 
ible as  those  of  the  resurrection.  The  difference  between 
the  body  that  is  laid  in  the  grave,  and  the  body  that  is 
raised  from  the  grave  is  not  so  great  as  the  difference  be- 
tween the  minute  embryonic  ovum,  and  the  human  form 
divine.  If  the  generation  of  the  bodj^  were,  up  to  this  time, 
as  rare  an  event  as  the  resurrection  of  the  body  it  might 
be  denied  with  equal  plausibility. 

Acts   26:8.     \Vhy   should   it   be    thought   a   thing   incredible    that 
GOD  should  raise  tlie  dead? 


Chapter  IV.    The  Identity  of  the  Resurrection-body. 

1.  Is  it  the  same  body  that  was  laid  in  the  tomb? 

Christ's  resurrected  body  was  the  same  body.  Proved 
to  Thomas. 

All  biblical  expressions  imply  sameness.  Necessary  to 
idea  of  resurrection. 

I.  Cor.   15:42.     IT  is  sown;  IT  is  raised. 

2.  Wherein  does  that  identity  consist? 

(a)  In  unorganized  matter  identity'  depends  on  same- 
ness of  substance  and  form.  A  stone  ground  and  scattered 
loses  its  identity  for  want  of  form.  The  same  material 
recombined  in  the  same  form  would  restore  the  identity. 
Water  frozen  and  melted  preserves  its  identity.  Same  sub- 
stance and  form.  Water  evaporated  and  condensed  pre- 
serves identity. 

(b)  Human  identity  maj''  not  depend  on  sameness  of 
substance.  The  human  body  may  disintegrate  and  pass 
into  other  bodies  and  the  same  material  become  parts  of 
several  different  men. 

The  substance  of  our  bodies  changes  every  seven 
years.  Yet  we  recog"nize  the  same  bodies  in  age  as  in 
infancy,  though  the  substance  has  changed  several  times. 
Therefore  the  identity  of  the  human  bodj-  does  not  depend 
on  the  sameness  of  the  material  particles. 

— 216 — 


3.     Various  views  of  the  resurrection  body. 

(a)  Some  think  that  some  small  particle  of  our  pres- 
ent body  will  be  sufficient  out  of  which  to  form  our  rari- 
fied  resurrection  body.     i-io,ooo  part  enough. 

Tertullian  thoug-ht  that  God  had  rendered  the  teeth 
indestructible  to  furnish  material  for  our  future  bodies. 

(b)  Others  think  that  in  our  bodies  is  an  indestructi- 
ble germ  which  is  to  be  developed  into  our  resurrection 
body.    This  is  a  modern  view  and  is  the  germ  theory. 

(c)  Expression  together  with  form  may  constitute 
identity;  and  material  substance  may  not  be  essential  to 
identity. 

In  a  block  of  marble  is  the  substance  out  of  which  a 
statue  is  to  be  made;  but  the  statue  is  not  there.  It  takes 
expression  and  form  for  that.  A  brother  gone  35  years. 
Substance  changed  five  times.  Recognized  at  once.  The 
material  which  your  soul  wears  constitutes  your  body  and 
becomes  a  medium  of  expression  for  your  soul;  and  in 
expressing  you  continues  its  identity. 

(d)  Recognizability  enters  into  identity. 

Dr.  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  says:  "The  resurrec- 
tion-body is  an  identical  body.  An  identical  body  is  one 
that  is  recognized  by  the  person  himself,  and  by  others. 
No  more  than  this  is  required  in  order  to  bodily  identity. 
A  living  man  recognizes  his  present  body  as  the  same 
body  that  he  had  ten  years  ago;  yet  the  material  particles 
are  not  the  same  identically." 

That  the  spiritual  body  is  recognized  is  proved  by: — 
Lk.    9:30-33.      Moses    and   Elijah   were   recognized   by   Christ   and 
pointed  out  to  the  disciples. 

Lk.  13:28.  Ye  shall  see  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  all 
the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

This  shows  that  they  will  be  recognized  and  therefore 
others  as  well. 

(e)  The  Bible  does  not  say  in  what  the  identity  con- 
sists; but  we  think  it  rational  to  believe  in  an  identity 
whether  it  consists  in  "sameness  of  substance,  in  expres- 
sion, or  in  the  uninterrupted  continuity  of  the  indwelling 
vital  force,  or  all  of  them,  or  in  something  different  from 
them  all."    Abbreviated  Hodge  III.  777. 

(f)  Summary: 

Into  the  resurrection-body  therefore  may  enter  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree: 

(i)   Material  substance. 

(2)  Form. 

(3)  Expression. 

(4)  Recognizability. 

— 217 — 


(5)  Continuity  or  connection.  There  is  an  unbroken 
continuity  between  the  seed  sown  and  the  seed  grown. 
There  is  also  an  unbroken  continuity  between  the  body  of 
the  infant  and  the  body  of  the  man.  Dr.  Shedd — "The 
resurrection-body  is  founded  on,  and  constructed  out  of 
the  previously  existing"  earthly  body." 


Chapter  V.    The  Second  Advent.^ 

Section  I.    A  matter  of  prophecy. 

1.  We  are  not  to  expect  prophecy  to  be  explicit  like 
history.  Of  Christ's  first  advent  it  was  prophesied  that  a 
Messiah  should  come,  that  he  would  be  a  redeemer,  a  king, 
a  priest,  and  establish  a  kingdom  which  should  absorb  all 
the  kingdoms  of  the  earth.  Yet  none  interpreted  the 
prophecies  rightly. 

"He  did  come  as  a  redeemer  yet  not  to  break  the 
Roman  yoke  with  armies.  He  did  come  as  a  king,  but  not 
the  kind  of  a  king  they  expected.  He  did  come  as  a 
priest,  but  the  only  priest  that  ever  lived  who  was  both 
priest  and  victim  at  the  same  time.  He  did  establish  a 
kingdom,  but  his  king'dom  was  not  of  this  world. 

"It  was  foretold  that  Elias  should  come.  He  did  come, 
but  in  a  way  that  no  one  could  anticipate.  It  was  foretold 
that  Christ  should  sit  on  the  throne  of  David;  but  that  has 
proved  to.be  no  earthly  throne. 

"He  is  to  subdue  all  nations,  not  by  the  sword;  but  by 
truth  and  love.  From  these  things  we  are  not  to  expect  to 
find  prophecy  like  history."     (Reference  lost.) 

2.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  a  coming  of  the  Lord  and 
a  day  of  the  Lord  when  they  mean  something  else  than 
the  Second  Advent  in  its  technical  sense. 

Joel  2:1. — the  day  of  the  Lord  cometh;  it  is  nigh  at  hand. 
also  V.  II. 

Ob.  1:15.  Here  the  day  of  the  Lord  refers  to  judgment  on 
Edom. 

Zeph.  1:7,  14.  Day  of  the  Lord — day  of  punishment  for  the 
nation. 

Zech.  14:1.  Day  of  the  Lord — when  armies  gathered  against 
Jerusalem. 

Is.   13:6.     Day  of  the  Lord — when  Babylon  shall  be  destroyed. 

Jar.  46:10.     Day  of  the  Lord — when  Egypt  defeated  by  Babylon. 

Jno.  14:22,  23.  We  will  come  unto  him  and  make  our  abode 
^vith  him. 

iThis  subject  is  given  disproportionate  space  because  it  is  a 
burning  eschatological  question  at  the  present  time. 

—218— 


Matt.  10:23.  Ye  shall  not  have  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel  till 
the  Son  of  Man  be  come. 

Matt.  16:28.  There  be  some  standing  here  who  shall  not  taste 
of  death  till  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  his  kingdom. 

Jno.  14:3.  If  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you  I  will  come  again 
and  receive  you  unto  myself,  that  where  I  am  there  ye  may  be 
also. 

Jno.  14:18.  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless;  I  will  come  unto 
you. 

Jno.  14:23. — and  my  Father  will  love  him  and  we  will  come  unto 
him,  etc. 

Rev.  2:16.     Repent   or   else   I   will   come   unto   thee   quickly. 

ReVj  3:20.  If  any  man  hear  my  voice  and  open  the  door  I  will 
come  in  to  him. 

Section  II.     Christ  will  come  again. 

1.  It  will  be  a  personal  coming. 

Acts  1:1 1.  This  same  Jesus  who  is  taken  up  from  you  into 
heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into 
heaven. 

I.  Thess.  4:16.  For  the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven 
with  a  shout. 

Heb.  9:28.  And  unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear 
the  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation. 

Phil.  3:20.  Our  conversation  is  in  heaven  from  whence  we  look 
for  the  Savior. 

2.  He  will  come  visibly. 

(Russellites  say  he  has  come  but  no  one  has  seen  him.) 

Matt.  24:27.  As  the  lightning  cometh  out  of  the  east  and 
shineth  even  unto  the  west,  so  also  shall  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
Man  be. 

Matt.  24:30.  Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man  in 
heaven,  and  all  tribes  shall  mourn,  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of 
Man  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and  great  glory. 

Rev.    1:7.     Every  eye  shall  see   him. 

I.  John  3:2.  When  he  shall  appear  we  shall  be  like  him  for  we 
shall   see  him   as  he  is. 

Section  III.  Events  that  will  precede  the  second  com- 
ing. 

1.     Preaching  of  the  gospel  to  all  nations. 

Matt.  24:14.  The  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in 
all  the  world  for  a  witness  to  all  nations,  and  then  shall  the  end 
come. 

Mk.  13:10.  And  the  gospel  must  first  be  preached  among  all 
nations. 

Matt.  28:19,20.  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations — and  lo 
I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 

Rom.  11:25.  Blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel  till  the 
fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in. 

— 219 — 


2.  The  conversion  of  the  Jews. 

(a)  They  shall  be  converted. 

Rom.  11:23,  24.  They  also  shall  be  grafted  in.  Natural  branches 
grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree. 

Rom.  11:26.     And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved. 

(b)  Israel  will  be  converted  before  the  second  coming. 
Gentiles  converted  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the 
inference  is  that  the  Jews  will  be  converted  in  the  same 
way. 

Rom.  ii:ii.  Shows  that  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles  was  to 
provoke   the  Jews   to  jealousy,   or  excite   to   rivalry. 

Rom.  11:31.  Through  the  mercy  shown  to  you;  they  also  may 
now  obtain  mercy.  This  shows  that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles 
is  to  lead  to  the  conversion  of  the  Jews;  and  this  evidently  by  the 
gospel.  The  mercy  to  the  Gentiles  was  the  gospel;  and  through  this 
Israel   is   to  obtain  mercy. 

Matt.  23:39.  Ye  shall  not  see  me  henceforth  till  ye  shall  say: 
Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Implies  con- 
version. 

Acts  3:19-21.  Peter  bids  the  Jews  repent  IN  ORDER  THAT 
times  of  refreshing  may  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and 
that  he  may  send  the  Christ.  This  shows  their  repentance  must 
precede  Christ's  coming. 

3.  The  coming  of  Anti-Christ  is  to  precede  the  second 
coming  of  Christ. 

II.  Thes.  2:1-3.  Be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind  or  troubled  as  that 
the  day  of  Christ  is  at  hand,  for  that  day  shall  not  come  except — 
a  falling  away  first  and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed. 

Who  is  he?  Some  think:  Any  great  spirit  of  opposi- 
tion. Some  person  of  great  power  and  wickedness.  Pap- 
acy; Napoleon  e.g.  Edw.  Irving.     (See  next  section.) 

I.   Jno.    2:18.      Even   now  are    there   many    Anti-Christs. 

Section  IV.    The  Man  of  Sin. 

1.  In  Dan.  11:21-45  we  have  the  description  of  a  king 
called  a  vile  person,  one  who  shall  pollute  the  sanctuary, 
cause  the  continual  sacrifice  to  cease,  and  set  up  the 
abomination  of  desolation.  This  vile  king  was  to  be  very 
powerful,  make  war  and  conquer,  and  show  his  peculiar 
spite  against  the  holy  land  and  the  holy  covenant.  There 
is  no  historical  character  that  fits  this  description  so  well 
as  Antiochus  Epiphanes  the  monster  of  the  Seleucid 
dynasty  of  S3'ria,  who  reigned  B.  C.  175-164  and  whose 
violence  and  desecration  of  the  temple  led  to  the  revolt  of 
the  Maccabees  and  the  rise  of  the  Asmonean  dynasty 
under  which  the  Jews  had  independence  for  about  100 
years. 

That  this  identification  is  correct  is  seen  in  the  his- 

— 220 — 


torical  allusions  of  the  whole  nth  chapter.  The  king  of 
the  north  and  the  king  of  the  south  are  the  figures  in  the 
scene.  This  refers  to  Syria  and  Egypt,  in  their  conflicts 
for  supremacy.  The  land  of  Israel  lay  between  them, 
sometimes  held  by  the  Ptolemies,  sometimes  by  the  Seleu- 
cidae,  and  finally  being  utterly  ravaged  by  Antiochus. 

There  is  no  other  period  when  these  allusions  will  fit. 
They  have  their  definite  historical  setting,  and  the  identi- 
fication is  unmistakable.  The  reference  to  the  abomina- 
tion that  maketh  desolate  is  therefore  applied  historically 
to  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 

2.  In  Matt.  24:15  Christ  applies  this  prophecy  of 
Daniel  to  the  times  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  When 
ye  shall  see  the  abomination  of  desolation  spoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  prophet  standing  in  the  holy  place.  The  holj' 
place  was  an  apartment  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  and 
these  words  of  our  Lord  seem  not  only  to  connect  this 
abomination  with  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  but  to  place  him 
among  the  besiegers.  This  therefore  constitutes  a  second 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  in  the  historical  cir- 
cumstance of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 

3.  Passing  now  to  Paul's  epistles  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians,  we  find  some  further  references  to  the  apostasy,  the 
man  of  sin,  and  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  or  the  day  of  the 
Lord.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  almost  every  passage  in 
Thessalonians,  in  which  the  second  advent  is  referred  to, 
conceives  of  it  as  the  judgment  day,  which  shows  that 
Paul  identified  the  two. 

I.  Thess.  1:10.  To  wait  for  his  Son — which  delivered  us  from 
wrath  to  come. 

I.  Thess.  2:19.     Believers  a  crown  of  rejoicing. 
I.     Thess.  3:13.     Unblamable   in   holiness. 
I.  Thess.  5:2.     As   a   thief  in   the   night. 
I.  Thess.  5:3.     Sudden  destruction. 

I.  Thess.  5:23.     Preserved  blameless. 

II.  Thess.  1:6.  Recompense  tribulation  to  them  that  trouble 
you. 

II.  Thess.   1:9.     Punished  with  everlasting  destruction. 
I.  Thess.   5:2,  calls  it  "the  day  of  the  Lord,"  a  term  which,  from 
Joel   had  stood  in  all  prophecy  as  the  synonym  of  the  judgment. 

Paul  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  refers  to 
Christ's  second  coming  as  a  ground  of  comfort  in  their 
persecutions,  affirming  their  vindication  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  wicked  troublers.  These  Thessalonians  just 
emerging  from  heathenism,  and  imperfectly  instructed, 
conceived  of  the  coming  of  Christ  as  immediately  at  hand, 
whereupon  certain  disorders  arose,  some  becoming  busy- 

— 221 — 


bodies  and  refusing"  to  work  and  eating-  the  bread  of 
others. 

To  correct  these  disorders  Paul  wrote  the  second 
epistle  in  which  occurs  the  passage  Chapter  2:1-12  refer- 
ring to  the  "day  of  the  Lord,"  the  apostasy,  the  man  of  sin 
and  the  "one  who  hindereth"  or  "he  that  letteth  will  let, 
till  he  be  taken  out  of  the  way." 

"That  day  shall  not  come  except  there  come  a  falling 
away,  or  apostasy,  and  the  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son 
of  perdition, — only  there  is  one  that  hindereth  until  he  is 
taken  out  of  the  way,  and  then  shall  that  wicked  one  be 
revealed." 

Who  or  what  was  this  "man  of  sin"?  As  Christ  re- 
ferred to  his  standing  in  the  holy  place,  so  Paul  says: 
"He  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God  setting  himself  forth  as 
God."  Both  passages  connect  him  with  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  and  locate  him  therefore  about  the  time  of 
Jerusalem's  fall. 

The  best  opinion  identifies  him  with  the  Roman  Em- 
peror, or  the  line  of  Emperors  of  that  time,  and  the  de- 
scription fits  the  case. 

Verse  4  describes  that  man  of  sin  as  one  who  "oppo- 
seth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  so 
that  he  as  God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  setting  him- 
self forth  as  God." 

This  was  literally  fulfilled  in  the  Roman  emperors. 
Caligula  with  his  passion  for  deification,  Nero  the  perse- 
cutor, Vespasian,  the  miracle  worker,  Titus  who  intro- 
duced his  divine-self  and  idolatrous  insignia  into  the  Holy 
of  Holies,  and  all  that  line  of  persecuting  monsters,  fill  up 
the  picture  as  Paul  drew  it  in  this  passage.  The  other 
parts  of  the  picture  also  fall  into  place. 

The  apostasy  referred  to  by  Paul  was  the  Jewish 
apostasy,  the  final  rejection  of  the  truth  proclaimed  in 
their  midst.  This  is  borne  out  by  Paul's  reference  to  it  in 
the  first  epistle  2:15,  16,  where  he  describes  the  Jews'  treat- 
ment of  Christ,  Christians  and  Christianity,  and  ends  by 
saying  that  wrath  is  come  upon  them  to  the  uttermost." 
It  is  fair  thus  to  assume  that  this  is  what  Paul  means  by 
"the  apostasy."  The  thing  "that  hindereth  and  will  hinder 
until  it  be  taken  out  of  the  way,"  is  evidently  something 
existing  when  Paul  wrote.  It  was  actually  hindering  then 
the  complete  manifestation  of  that  Man  of  sin.  It  was 
shortly  to  be  taken  away  and  then  all  the  power  of  the 
man  of  sin  would  be  visited  upon  the  infant  church. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  how  this  corresponds  with  the 
Jewish  state.    It  was  soon  to  be  taken  away.    It  served  as 


a  shield  and  protection  to  the  Christian  church  in  those 
early  years,  not  willingly  indeed  but  none  the  less  really. 
It  was  the  policy  of  Rome  not  to  interfere  with  the  reli- 
g-ion  of  a  subject  nation,  and  in  the  early  days  Christian- 
ity was  concealed  from  notice,  by  being"  confused  with 
Judaism.  Rome  was  hostile  to  any  new  religion,  but 
Christianity  escaped  that  hostility  under  the  toleration 
accorded  to  Judaism,  until  the  Jewish  state  was  swept 
away  and  the  difference  was  perceived,  and  by  that  time 
the  church  had  grown  strong  enough  to  withstand  the 
storm  that  broke  upon  its  head.  The  hinderer  hindered 
until  it  was  taken  out  of  the  way  and  then  that  wicked 
one  was  revealed  with  all  his  persecuting  power.  This  is 
the  answer  which  history  has  given  in  the  interpretation 
of  Paul's  prophecies.  Paul  wrote  this  about  52  or  53  A.  D. 
and  in  a  score  of  j^ears  the  main  facts  had  come  to  pass. 

The  inquiry  will  very  properly  arise,  if  the  man  of  sin 
is  synonymous  with  the  Roman  power,  personified  in  the 
emperors,  how  does  this  coincide  with  the  statement  that 
he  shall  be  destroyed  with  the  brightness  of  Christ's  com- 
ing?    In  this  connection  observe  three  things: — 

1.  Paul  does  not  say  that  the  man  of  sin  will  be 
reigning  and  dominant  at  the  time  of  Christ's  coming,  but 
only  that  he  with  all  other  wicked  persecutors  and 
troublers,  will  meet  his  doom  and  receive  his  deserts  in  the 
judgment  at  Christ's  appearing. 

2.  That  while  Paul  mentions  the  apostasy,  the  hin- 
derer, and  the  day  of  the  Lord,  he  does  not  say  that  they 
are  immediately  consecutive.  For  aught  we  know  centur- 
ies may  intervene  between  them  and  still  men  wait  for 
the  sequence.  The  difference  between  Paul  and  the  Thes- 
salonians  was  this:  the  Thessalonians  were  certain  that 
Christ  would  immediately  appear  or  at  least  in  their  life- 
time. Paul  leaves  the  matter  open.  He  does  not  teach 
that  Christ  will  appear  in  their  age,  neither  does  he  teach 
the  contrary.    He  leaves  that  question  for  time  to  settle. 

3.  The  phrase,  "day  of  the  Lord"  may  refer  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  well  as  to  the  second  advent. 
The  usage  of  the  phrase  makes  it  applicable  to  any  great 
national  judgment.  Such  is  its  constant  usage  in  the 
Scriptures. 

Summing  up,  we  see  that  the  "abomination  of  desola- 
tion" which  seems  to  be  synonymous  with  the  "man  of 
sin"  has  had  more  than  one  historical  counterpart. 

Whatever  future  manifestations  of  him  may  occur 
must  be  determined  by  the  event. 

John  who  lived  in  the  time  of  this  man  of  sin,  and  felt 

—223 — 


some  of  his  bitter  thrusts  mentions  the  Anti-Christ  four 
times  in  his  epistles: 

I.  John  2:18.  As  ye  have  heard  that  Anti-Christ  shall  come, 
even  now  are   there  many  Anti-Christs. 

I.  John  2:22.  He  is  the  Anti-Christ  that  denieth  the  Father  and 
the  Son. 

I.  John  4:3  (Revised  Version).  And  every  spirit  which  con- 
fesseth  not  Jesus  is  not  of  God;  and  this  is  the  spirit  of  the  Anti- 
Christ,  whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  cometh,  and  now  it  is  in  the 
world  already. 

II.  John  1:7.  For  many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the  world, 
who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a 
deceiver  and  an  Anti-Christ. 

Section  V.  Events  which  will  accompany  the  second 
advent. 

1.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead,  just  and  unjust. 

Dan.   12:2. 

Jno.  5:28,  29. — all  that  are  in  their  graves;  all  at  once;  at 
Christ's  call. 

Rev.   20:12,   13.     All   the  dead  rising  and  coming-  to  judgment. 

I.  Thess.  4:16.  The  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven 
with  a  shout  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first  (i.e.  before 
ascension).  This  shows  that  the  resurrection  occurs  at  the  advent 
of  Christ. 

2.  The  Judgment. 

Matt.  25:31  ff.  Shows  Christ's  coming  followed  by  the  general 
judgment.  Schofield  clearly  wrong  in  making  this  a  judgment  of 
nations. 

II.  Thess.    1:7-10.  Shows    coming    connected   with    judgment. 

3.  The  end  of  the  world  associated  with  the  second 
coming". 

Matt.  13:39.  In  Parable  of  Tares:  The  harvest  is  the  end  of 
the  world,  and  the  reapers  are  the  angels. 

Matt.    13:40-43.     Application  of  same. 

Matt.  13:49.  Parable  of  the  Net.  So  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of 
the  world,  the  angels  shall  come  forth  and  sever  the  wicked  from 
among  the  good  and  shall  cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire,  etc. 

Sometimes  said  that  the  word  "world"  means  age;  and 
so  not  end  of  world.  But  it  is  the  age  of  the  world's 
affairs.  The  destiny  appointed  to  the  righteous  and 
wicked  shows  what  end  is  meant. 

II.  Pet.  3:10-12.  Elements  melt,  earth  burned  up,  heavens  on 
fire. 

Christ  refers  judgment  and  resurrection  to  "the  last 
day." 

Jno.  12:48.  The  word  that  I  have  spoken  the  same  will  judge 
him  IN  THE  LAST  DAY. 

— 224 — 


Jno,  11:24.  Martha  (taught  by  Christ)  says:  I  know  that  he 
will  rise  again  in  the  resurrection  at  THE'  LAST  DAY. 

Jno.  6:39. — that  of  all  that  he  hath  given  me  I  should  lose 
nothing;  but  should  raise  it  up  again  at  THE  LAST  DAY. 

Jno.  6:40. — -may  have  everlasting  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up 
at  THE  LAST  DAY. 

Jno.  6:44.  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  draw 
him,  and  I  will  raise  him   up  at  THE:  LAST  DAY. 

Section  VI.     Pre-Millennialism. 

1.  Statement.  This  doctrine  teaches,  as  its  name 
indicates,  that  Christ  will  come  a  second  time  before  the 
millennium.  It  had  some  currency  from  A.D.  150  till 
about  250,  afterwards  gradually  died  out  and  has  been 
revived  to  some  extent  in  recent  years.  Pre-Millennialists 
understand  the  term  "king-dom"  to  mean  the  millennial 
kingdom.  They  say  that  Christ  came  and  offered  himself 
and  the  kingdom;  that  both  were  refused;  and  that  the 
kingdom  was  withdrawn  from  the  world  when  Christ 
ascended;  that  there  is  now  no  kingdom  in  the  world  and 
will  not  be  till  Christ  comes  to  reign  personally  and  vis- 
ibly on  earth, — "no  kingdom  without  a  king."  This  is 
therefore  not  the  kingdom  age  but  the  church  age.  The 
gospel  will  not  succeed  but  the  world  will  be  converted  by 
the  second  coming. 

Christ's  coming  is  said  to  be  imminent,  that  he  may 
come  any  day.  The  Bishop  of  London  said  a  few  years 
ago  that  it  would  occur  in  1920. 

According  to  this  view  when  Christ  comes  the  godly 
dead  will  rise,  the  church  ascend  to  meet  Christ  in  the  air, 
and  Christ  and  the  church  will  remain  in  the  air  for  a 
period;  said  by  some  to  be  seven  years.  That  period  is  a 
time  of  tribulation  to  the  Jews  and  the  wicked  on  earth. 

At  the  end  of  the  tribulation  Christ  and  the  church 
come  to  earth  and  reign  a  thousand  years.  By  this  coming 
the  Jews  are  converted  and  presumably  all  others.  At  the 
end  of  the  thousand  years  Satan  is  loosed;  the  world  goes 
from  bad  to  worse,  Satan's  hosts  war  against  the  saints  till 
fire  comes  down  to  destroy  them.  Then  Satan  is  cast  into 
the  pit;  then  follow  the  resurrection  and  judgment  of  the 
wicked. 

THE  CHART 

2.  Arguments  for  Pre-Millennialism  as  given  by 
William  E.  Blackstone. 

(a)  Anti-Christ  is  to  be  destroyed  by  Christ's  second 
coming.    II.  Thes.  2:8. 

— 225— 


(b)  Matt.  24:29-31.  Christ's  coming  immediately  after 
tribulation. 

(c)  II.  Tim.  3:12.  All  who  will  live  godly  in  Christ 
Jesus  shall  suffer  persecution.  The  true  church  is  a  perse- 
cuted, suffering  church,  and  this  will  continue  till  Christ 
comes  again. 

II.  Thess.  1:7.  And  to  you  that  are  afflicted,  rest  with 
us  at  the  revelation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from  heaven  with 
the  angels  of  his  power  in  flaming  fire.  This  continued 
persecution  and  suffering  precludes  any  millennium  until 
after  Christ's  coming. 

(d)  The  tares  and  wheat  will  grow  together  until  the 
end  (of  this  age), — Matt.  13:30.  Evil  men  and  seducers 
.will  wax  worse  and  worse, — II.  Tim.  3:13.  As  it  was  in 
the  days  of  Noah  and  Lot,  even  thus  shall  it  be  in  the  da3' 
when  the  son  of  Man  is  revealed, — Lk.  17:30. 

This  absolutely  precludes  the  idea  of  the  millennial 
reign  of  righteousness  in  this  dispensation. 

(e)  The  millennial  kingdom  will  be  a  literal  reign  of 
Christ  on  earth,  and  not  simply  a  spiritual  exaltation  of 
the  church. 

Is.  32:1.     Behold  a  king  shall   reign  in   righteousness. 

Jer.  23:5.  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch,  and  a 
king  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  execute  judgment  and  justice 
in  the  earth.     This  reign  shall  be  upon  the  throne  of  David. 

Is.  9:7.  Of  the  increase  of  his  government  and  peace  there  shall 
be  no  end  upon  the  throne  of  David  and  upon  his  kingdom  to  order 
and  establish  it  with  judgment  and  justice  from  henceforth  even 
forever. 

Lk.  1:32.  He  shall  be  great  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the 
Highest,  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his 
father  David.  Verse  33  describes  an  everlasting  reign.  This  visible 
reign  shall  be  at  Jerusalem. 

Jer.  3:17.  At  that  time  shall  they  call  Jerusalem  the  throne  of 
the  Lord,  and  all  the  nations  shall  be  gathered  unto  it,  to  the  name 
of  the  Lord  to  Jerusalem.  (Spoken  in  connection  with  restoration 
from    Babylon.) 

Zech.  14:16.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  every'  one  that  is 
left  of  all  the  nations  that  came  against  Jerusalem  shall  even  go  up 
from  year  to  year  to  worship  the  king,  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  and  to 
keep  the  feast  of  Tabernacles. 

The  Apostles  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones. 

Matt.   19:28.     Ye  which   have   followed  me,   in   the   regeneration, 
when   the   Son   of  Man   shall   sit   in   the   throne  of  his  glory,  ye   also 
shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
(Question  is,  what  time  is  referred  to?) 
Saints  shall  reign  on  the  earth. 

Rev.  5:10.  And  hath  made  us  into  our  God,  kings  and  priests 
and  we  shall  reign  on  earth.     (Part  of  the  song  in  heaven.) 

(f)  Argument  from  the  order  of  the  resurrection. 

As  Jesus  was  raised  out  of  the  dead  and  the  rest  of  the 
dead  were  left,  so  the  dead  in  Christ,  that  are  his  at  his 

■ — 226 — 


coming",  will  be  raised  out  of  the  dead  and  the  rest  of  the 
dead  will  be  left  until  another  and  final  resurrection,  and 
the  Millennium  will  occur  between  these  two  resurrections; 
thus  clearly  showing"  Christ's  coming"  to  be  pre-millennial. 

I.  Cor.  15:23  ff.  Every  man  in  his  own  order,  Christ  the  first 
fruits,  afterwards  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming; — then  (or 
afterwards)  the  end.  i.e.  Christ — ^saints — -the  rest  of  dead  at  the 
end.      (Forced  Interpretation.) 

I.  Thess.  4:16. — and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall   rise  first. 

Rev.  20:4,  5.  And  I  saw  the  souls  of  those  that  were  beheaded 
— ^and  they  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand  years.  But 
the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not  until  the  thousand  years  were  fin- 
ished. This  is  the  first  resurrection.  Those  who  were  beheaded  are 
thought  to  be  "tribulation  saints,"  or  those  who  perished  in  the 
tribulation  under  the  reign  of  the  Anti-Christ. 

3.     Remarks  on  Blackstone's  Arguments. 

(a)  That  Anti-Christ  will  be  destro5''ed  at  Christ's  sec- 
ond coming"  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  he  will  con- 
tinue till  that  coming",  but  that  he  will  share  the  fate  that 
awaits  all  the  wicked;  and  the  Apostle  John  says,  "There 
are  many  Anti-Christs." 

(b)  Christ's  coming"  immediately  after  the  tribulation. 
Even  on  the  Post-Millennial  view  there  may  be  a  tribula- 
tion at  the  end  of  the  world,  when  Satan  is  loosed  from 
the  pit.  There  are  many  tribulations,  and  Matt.  24  clearly 
fixes  one  of  them  at  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 

(c)  That  the  church  is  a  persecuted  church  and  that 
this  precludes  any  millennial  era  before  Christ's  coming"  is 
too  large  a  conclusion  for  the  basis  on  which  it  is  placed. 

(d)  As  to  the  tares,  evil  men  and  seducers,  and  days 
of  Noah  and  Lot,  observe:  The  desig"n  of  the  parable  of 
the  tares  is  to  explain  Christ's  attitude  toward  evil  and  to 
teach  the  church's  duty: — that  evil  is  not  to  be  uprooted 
by  violence.  The  church  must  suffer  its  presence  in  the 
world;  but  that  Christ  himself  will  make  that  separation 
at  the  end  of  the  world.  This  end  of  the  world  is  the  ter- 
minus of  the  world's  affairs,  as  is  shown  by  the  final  sep- 
aration, the  ag"ency  of  ang"els,  and  the  destiny  appointed 
to  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  The  question  of  a  mil- 
lennial reign  is  not  in  view;  but  a  simultaneous  judgment 
which  Premillennialism  denies,  and  that  good  and  evil 
intermingle  till  the  end  of  the  world,  then  separation  and 
destiny. 

The  growth  of  evil  in  wicked  men  proves  nothing  as 
to  the  time  of  the  second  coming. 

The  analogy  to  the  days  of  Noah  and  Lot  shows  only 
that  the  coming  will  be  sudden  and  unexpected,  but  shows 
nothing  as  to  the  time. 

— 227 — 


(e)  The  argument  for  a  literal  reign. 

This  argument  is  too  literal.  If  the  Messiah  must  sit 
on  a  literal  throne  then  must  that  literal  throne  last  for- 
ever.    Is.  9:7,  Lk.  1:33. 

Apostles  on  twelve  thrones:  this  assigns  as  a  proof 
the  very  thing  that  is  to  be  proved,  viz.  that  the  reign  will 
be  on  earth.  The  question  at  issue  is,  what  time  is  referred 
to. 

Rev.  5:10.  Saints  reigning  on  earth.  The  Revised  Version  gives 
a  different  meaning  to  this  text. 

Christ  says:  The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you. 
Also,  my  kingdom  is  NOT  of  this  world,  and  the  kingdom 
of  God  Cometh  NOT  with  observation. 

(f)  Argument  from  the  order  of  the  resurrection. 
Here  we  have  three  texts  presented. 

I.  Cor.  15:23  ff.  The  interpretation  is  forced.  It  is  quite  -as 
justifiable  here  to  synchronize  Christ's  coming  with  the  end.  "Then 
the   end." 

I.  Thess.  4:16.  The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  The  infer- 
ence drawn  here  is  clearly  wrong  as  the  context  will  show.  The 
resurrection  is  "first"  as  respects  the  ascension,  and  not  as  respects 
another  resurrection. 

Rev.  20:4,  5.  Here  the  meaning  is  too  uncertain  to  make  the 
text  decisive.     See  remarks  on  Rev.   20,  on  a  subsequent  page. 

David  Brown  in  "The  Second  Advent,"  pp.  218-258, 
gives  nine  reasons  why  the  resurrection  mentioned  in  Rev. 
20:5  is  not  literal  but  figurative. 

4.     General  remarks  on  Pre-Millennialism. 

(a)  The  Scriptures  do  say  that  Christ  will  come  again. 
This  is  admitted  by  all.  The  difference  of  opinion  regards 
the  time  of  the  advent. 

(b)  The  Pre-Millennialists  cite  much  from  the  Old 
Testament  that  refers  to  the  first  advent  or  the  progress 
of  the  church  in  the  world. 

There  is  no  proof  that  the  kingdom  was  withdrawn 
from  the  world  when  Christ  ascended. 

(d)  The  distinction  between  the  church  age  and  the 
kingdom  age  is  entirely  unwarranted.  The  kingdom  is  in 
the  world  at  the  present  time. 

(e)  There  is  no  satisfactory  proof  that  the  saints  will 
return  to  earth  after  meeting  Christ  in  the  air.  The  only 
expressed  sequence  in  loco  is  "so  shall  we  ever  be  with 
the  Lord."    See  Section  VII.  Paragraph  3. 

(f)  When  it  is  said  that  they  reign  with  Christ  a 
thousand  years,  it  is  not  said  whether  that  is  in  heaven  or 
on  the  earth.    Both  views  are  held. 

(g)  There  is  no  proof  that  the  church  will  remain  in 
the  air  seven  years  or  for  any  time.     The  week  of  Dan. 

—228— 


9:27  evidently  refers  to  some  other  event,  and  similar  ref- 
erences are  too  vag-ue  to  justifj^  such  a  conclusion. 

(h)  In  Matt.  24:21,  Christ  mentions  a  time  of  tribula- 
tion which  evidently  refers  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. What  typical  reference  it  may  have  to  some  future 
event  is  not  clear, 

(i)  It  is  not  in  the  Apostle's  Creed,  Shorter  Catechism, 
Confession  of  Faith,  or  any  other  church  creed. 

(j)   Its  method  of  interpretation  is  erroneous. 

(k)   It  is  due  more  to  eisegesis  than  to  exegesis. 

Section  VIII.     Post-Millennialism. 

1.  Statement. 

In  this  view  Christ  comes  at  the  end  of  the  world. 
Then  occurs  the  resurrection,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust; 
the  general  judgment;  and  the  final  sentence  vindicating 
the  righteous,  condemning  the  wicked,  and  consigning 
each  to  their  eternal  destiny. 

It  is  called  Post-millennial  because  it  assig"ns  Christ's 
coming  to  a  period  after  the  millennium. 

2.  Proof. 

(a)  In  Matt.  13,  the  parables  of  the  Tares  and  the 
Draw-net  show  that  the  judg-ment  is  at  the  "end  of  the 
world."  The  word  "age"  indicates  the  world-ag"e,  or  what 
we  call  "time."  The  separation,  the  destiny  assigned  to 
righteous  and  wicked,  in  fact  the  whole  setting  indicate  a 
final  and  not  a  preliminary  scene.  Also  the  judgment  of 
both  classes  is  simultaneous.  The  word,  age,  "aion,"  as 
applied  to  man  in  the  Scriptures,  has  but  two  connota- 
tions, which  correspond  to  our  terms  "time  and  eternity," 
"here  and  hereafter,"  "this  world  and  the  next."  The  one 
age  is  finite  and  the  other  infinite. 

In  confi.rmation,  see  Matt.  12:32,  Mk.  10:30,  Lk.  18:30, 
Ephes.  1:21. 

(b)  Christ's  use  of  "the  last  day." 

Christ  refers  both  judgment  and  resurrection  to  the 
last  day,  "THE  last  day."    That  is  decisive. 

Jno.  6:39, — lose  nothing-;  but  should  raise  it  up  at  the  last  day. 
Jno.  6:40, — and  I  will   raise   him   up   at   the   last   day. 
Jno.  6:44, — and  I  will   raise   him   up   at   the   last   day. 
Jno.   12:48, — the  word   that  I  have  spoken,   the  same  shall  judge 
him  in   the  last  day. 

(c)  Martha's  use  of  "the  last  day."  Jno.  11:24,  I  know 
that  he  will  rise  ag-ain  in  the  resurrection  in  the  last  day. 

— 229 — 


And  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  Martha  was  taught  by 
Christ. 

(d)  The  Bible  synchronizes  the  second  coming"  and 
the  resurrection;  and  further  synchronizes  the  resurrection 
and  the  last  day  and  therefore  synchronizes  the  second 
coming"  and  the  last  day. 

(e)  The  Bible  synchronizes  the  second  coming  and 
the  judgment;  and  further  synchronizes  the  judgment  with 
the  end  of  the  world,  and  therefore  synchronizes  the  sec- 
ond coming  and  the  end  of  the  world. 

(f)  The  Scriptures  represent  the  world  as  being  con- 
sumed by  fire  in  that  day  that  comes  as  a  thief.  See  II. 
Pet.  3:10-12.  Here  we  have  a  phrase  previously  applied  to 
Christ's  advent,  associated  with  the  destruction  of  the 
world.  The  day  that  comes  as  a  thief  is  the  day  when  the 
elements  melt  with  fervent  heat,  the  earth  also  and  the 
works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up.  Christ's  com- 
ing marks  the  end  of  the  world. 

(g)  Jno.  5:28,  29.  The  hour  is  coming  in  which  all 
that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come 
forth;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of 
life;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of 
judgment. 

These  verses  show  that  the  just  and  unjust  will  rise  at 
the  same  time  and  not  a  thousand  years  apart. 

(h)  Matt.  25:31  ff.  Show  Christ's  coming  followed  by 
the  general  judgment.  By  no  possibility  of  sane  inter- 
pretation can  this  mean  a  judgment  of  nations  as  such, 
prior  to  the  millennium,  as  Dr.  Schofield  declares.  The 
GROUNDS  OF  THE  JUDGMENT,  the  SENTENCE  PRO- 
NOUNCED, the  DESTINY  ASSIGNED  are  out  of  all 
keeping  with  such  a  view. 

The  terms  apply  to  individuals  and  not  to  nations. 
"Everlasting  punishment,"  and  "life  eternal,"  have  no 
applicability  to  nations. 

(i)  Christ  and  Paul  take  occasion  to  discourage  the 
expectation  of  an  early  millennial  kingdom. 

This  expectation  gained  some  currency  among  the 
early  disciples.  Inheriting  from  Judaism  the  idea  of  an 
earthly  reign,  they  looked  for  Christ  to  set  up  such  a  king- 
dom while  he  was  on  earth.  After  his  death  some  still 
clung  to  the  hope  of  a  speedy  return  and  an  earthly  reign. 
This  however  was  not  consistent  with  Christ's  own  teach- 
ing, as  the  following  will  show: — 

The  parable  of  the  leaven  shows  the  kingdom  working 
gradually  till  the  world  is  permeated  with  the  spirit  of  the 

—230 — 


gospel.  The  claim  that  the  leaven  does  not  represent  the 
kingdom  is  too  preposterous  to  require  refutation. 

The  parable  of  the  ten  virgins  represents  the  bride- 
groom as  tarrying.     Matt.  25:1-13. 

The  parable  of  the  talents  shows  the  lord  of  the 
servants  absent  "a  long  time."     Matt.  25:14-30, 

The  parable  of  the  pounds,  Lk.  19:11-27,  was  spoken 
expressly  to  correct  the  mistake  of  a  speedy  consumma- 
tion. 

Christ  bids  the  Apostles  go  forth  and  make  disciples 
of  all  nations,  Matt.  28:19.  They  could  not  rationally  ex- 
pect this  to  be  done  in  a  few  years.  When  the  Apostles 
asked  Christ  before  his  ascension  if  he  would  at  that  time 
restore  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  he  answered  by  telling  them 
that  they  must  be  his  witnesses  to  the  uttermost  part  of 
the  earth.  All  this  was  entirely  contrary  to  the  expecta- 
tion of  a  speedy  coming'.  And  further,  four  of  the  para- 
bles in  Matt.  13  represent  the  kingdom  by  processes  of 
growth. 

The  Apostle  Paul  too  has  written  some  things  that 
look  the  same  way.  Rom.  11:25,  Blindness  in  part  hath 
happened  to  Israel  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be 
come  in.  The  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  would  not  be  accom- 
plished in  a  few  brief  years;  generations  of  toil  lay  be- 
tween those  early  disciples  and  that  blessed  fulness. 

When  the  expectation  of  a  speedy  coming  came  to  a 
climax  in  the  Thessalouian  church,  Paul  wrote  his  second 
epistle  to  correct  that  mistake.  "Be  not  soon  shaken  in 
mind  or  troubled,  neither  by  spirit,  nor  by  word,  nor  by 
letter  as  from  us  as  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand,  or 
"is  close,"  or  (Lightfoot)   "is  imminent." 

He  goes  on  then  to  give  some  reasons  why  it  was  not 
to  be  regarded  by  them  as  imminent. 

Thus  we  find  a  considerable  body  of  teaching  that 
was  intended  to  counteract  the  mistake  of  some  of  the 
early  disciples  that  Christ's  second  advent  was  soon  to  be 
expected. 

The  idea  persisted  in  some  quarters  of  the  early 
church  till  the  first  Ecumenical  Council  which  definitely 
decided  that  such  was  not  the  purport  of  Christ's  teaching. 
After  that  the  early  Chiliasm  died  away. 

(j)   The  kingdom  is  in  the  world  at  the  present  time. 

Dan.  2:44.  And  in  the  days  of  those  kings  shall  the  God  of 
heaven  set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed.  This  is  a 
prophecy  of  Christ's  kingdom  to  be  set  up  in  the  days  of  the 
Roman  rulers. 

Dan.  7:23-27.  This  is  a  further  prophecy  of  the  kingdom  in  the 
days  of  the  fourth  beast  or  the  Roman  power. 

— 231 — 


Matt.  6:33.  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteous- 
ness.    This  is  set  forth  as  a  present  duty  for  every  man. 

Matt,  13:38.  The  field  is  the  world,  the  good  seed  are  the 
children  of  the  kingdom. 

-Matt.  18:4,  Whosoever  shall  humble  himself  as  a  little  child,  the 
same   is  greatest  in   the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Matt.  21:31,  The  publicans  and  harlots  go  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  before  you. 

Matt.  21:43.  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you  and 
given   to   a  nation   bringing  forth   the   fruits   thereof. 

Mk,   12:34.     Thou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Lk.  6:20.     Blessed  be  ye  poor  for  yours  is  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Lk.  16:16.  Since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  preached 
and  every  man  presseth  into  it. 

Lk.   10:9-11.     The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you. 

Lk.  12:32^  It  is  your  Father's  good  pleasure  to  give  you  the 
kingdom. 

Jno.  3:3.  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom of  God.  Who  can  imagine  that  this  is  a  millennial  kingdom 
not  yet  set  up? 

Rom.  14:17.  For  the  kingdoin  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink, 
but  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  these 
are  graces  of  the  Spirit  now,  the  kingdom  is  here  now. 

Col.  1:13.  Who  hath  delivered  us  from  the  powers  of  darkness 
and  hath  translated  us  into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son. 

From  these  passages  it  is  clear  that  the  kingdom  is  in 
the  world  at  the  present  time;  not  merely  when  Christ  was 
on  earth,  nor  when  the  millennial  age  shall  arrive,  but 
here  and  now  in  the  visible  and  invisible  church  of  God. 
Is  Christ  a  king"  now?  If  he  is,  then  there  must  be  a  king- 
dom over  which  he  rules.  If  he  is  not,  then  the  work  of 
salvation  goes  on  without  his  kingly  office,  and  thus  his 
kingly  office  would  not  be  essential  to  salvation. 

Grouping  some  teachings  already  observed  we  have 
these  additional  paragraphs: 

(k)  All  believers  will  be  raised  at  Christ's  coming  at 
the  last  day  and  there  will  be  a  simultaneous  resurrection 
of  the  just  and  the  unjust. 

Jno.  6:39.  And  this  is  the  Father's  will, — ^that  of  ALL  that  he 
hath  given  me  I  should  lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  again 
at  the  last  day. 

Jno.  6:40.  And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me  that  EVERY 
ONE  which  seeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  him  may  have  everlast- 
ing life,   and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 

I.  Cor.  15:23.  They  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming;  evidently 
all  that  are  his. 

The  pre-millennialist  says  some  at  Christ's  coming 
and  some  no  one  ever  knows  when  if  ever.  Since  the 
pre-millennialist  makes  Rev.  20:11  ff.  to  refer  to  the, 
wicked  only,  there  is  no  provision  for  the  righteous  dead 
to  be  judged  at  all  nor  raised  at  all  after  the  Advent. 

The  Bible  has  little  to  say  as  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
wicked;  but  its  few  references  show  them  raised  together 
with  the  righteous.     Some  passages  on  the  resurrection  of 

—232— 


the  righteous  make  no  mention  of  the  wicked.  This 
feature  has  been  seized  upon  by  pre-millennialists  as  evi- 
dence that  they  are  not  raised  together.  But  their  argu- 
ment is  a  non-sequitur,  and  a  species  of  fallacious  reason- 
ing. 

The  wicked  are  not  mentioned  in  those  passages  with 
the  just,  not  because  they  do  not  rise  at  the  same  time,  but 
because  they  do  not  rise  on  the  same  principle;  because 
not  united  to  Christ.  In  those  passages  the  Apostles  are 
speaking  only  of  believers,  the  wicked  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  point  in  view  and  so  are  not  mentioned.  The 
Socinians  and  Remonstrants  used  those  same  passages  to 
prove  that  the  wicked  do  not  rise  at  all;  the  same  species 
of  fallacious  reasoning. 

It  is  often  said  that  ek  nekron  e.g.  Acts  4:2,  expresses 
an  "out-resurrection  from  the  dead,"  implying  that  some 
are  raised  up  and  out  from  others  who  are  left  behind. 
The  argument  will  not  bear  examination,  for  references 
are  found  to  both  classes,  and  to  Christ  himself,  without 
the  ek. 

The  following  few  passages  bear  on  the  resurrection 
of  both  classes: 

Dan.  12:2.  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the 
earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting-  life,  and  some  to  shame  and 
everlasting  contempt; — "at  that  time." 

Jno.  5:28,  29.  The  hour  is  coming  in  which  all  that  are  in  the 
graves  shall  hear  his  voice  and  shall  come  forth,  they  that  have 
done  good  unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done 
evil   to   the   resurrection   of  damnation. 

This  is  absolutely  conclusive  of  the  simultaneous 
rising  of  the  just  and  unjust.  And  the  hour  cannot  be 
lengthened  to  include  an  age,  for  resurrection  is  said  to  be 
in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye;  and  whatever 
the  pre-millennialist  might  claim  as  to  a  continuous  age 
for  the  resurrection  to  life,  he  would  not  be  so  willing  to 
make  that  claim  of  the  resurrection  to  damnation;  and  the 
term  "hour"  applies  to  both. 

Acts  24:15.  And  have  hope  toward  God  which  they  themselves 
also  allow  that  there  will  be  a  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and 
unjust.     There  is  here  at  least  no  hint  of  separate  resurrections. 

Rev.  20:11-15.  This  is  evidently  a  general  resurrection.  If  this 
refers  to  the  wicked  only,  what  provision  is  left  for  the  resurrection 
of  millennial  and  post-millennial  saints? 

Thus  the  Scriptures  associate  the  resurrection  of  the 
just  and  unjust  and  the  only  fair  conclusion  is  that  it  is  a 
simultaneous  resurrection.  No  other  conclusion  seems 
rational  especially  in  the  light  of  Jno.  5:28,  29. 

(1)  The  Judgment  of  the  righteous  and  wicked  is  one 
transaction  and  simultaneous. 

—233— 


Matt.  10:32,  33,  taken  with  Mk.  8:38  shows  judgment  of  both 
classes  when  Christ   comes. 

Matt.  7:21-23.     Reception  and  rejection  in  that  day. 

Matt.  16:27.  For  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his 
Father  with  his  angels;  and  then  he  shall  reward  EVERY  MAN 
according  to  his  works. 

Matt.  25:16-30.  The  parable  of  the  talents  shows  that  the  rec- 
koning is  all  one  transaction  for  the  faithful  and  the  unfaithful. 

Matt.  25:31-46.  This  shows  the  judgment  of  all,  evil  and  good 
in  one  great  assize. 

Matt.  13:38-43.  Parable  of  the  tares, — judgment  at  the  time  of 
Christ's  coming,  the  wicked  judged  then,  not  a  thousand  years 
after;   the  tares  gathered  first. 

Jno.  5:28,  29.  Here  resurrection  and  judgment  axe  combined; 
"all  that  are  in  their  graves,"  a  universal  event,  good  and  bad,  in 
one  "hour."  Whatever  may  be  said  as  to  the  length  of  the  hour, 
here  is  the  unity  of  the  period,  and  transaction;  as  against  the 
separateness,  and  multifarious  and  broken  transactions  of  the  pre- 
millennial  scheme. 

Acts  17:13.  Appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world. 
Here  is  all  the  world  in  judgnient,  all  at  one  time;  no  dismembered 
parts  of  the  process  discernible. 

Rom.  2:5-16.  Will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds, 
to  some  eternal  life  to  some  wrath,  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge 
the  secrets  of  men.     One  day,  one  transaction,  both  classes. 

n.  Cor.  5:9-11.  We  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat 
of  Christ.     Premillennialists  say  this  refers  only  to  the  righteous. 

H.  Thess.  1:6-10.  Recompense  tribulation  to  one,  rest  to  the 
other,  when  the  Lord  is  revealed  from  heaven.  The  wicked  are 
"punished  with  everlasting  destruction,"  "in  that  day."  Here  both 
classes  get  recompense  at  the  same  time,  in  that  day;  therefore  not 
a  divided  judgment. 

n.  Tim.  4:1.  Judge  the  quick  and  dead  at  his  appearing,  all  at 
his  appearing;  not  some  at  his  appearing  and  the  rest  a  thousand 
years  after. 

Rev.  20:11-15.  In  harmony  with  all  the  rest  doubtless  pictures 
a  simultaneous   and   universal   resurrection   and  judgment. 

How  strangfe  that,  in  the  light  of  these  facts,  the  pre- 
millennialist  will  deny  a  g'eneral  judgment. 

3.     As  to  saints  reigning"  on  earth. 

(a)  When  the  saints  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air  it  is 
added:  "So  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord."  There  is  no 
hint  of  coming  back  to  earth  after  their  ascension.  This 
would  involve  either  a  retransformation  from  the  resurrec- 
tion-body to  a  natural  bod5^  or  their  reigning  on  earth  in 
their  "spiritual"  bodies. 

Rev.  5:10.  And  hast  made  us  kings  and  priests  and  we  shall 
reign  on  the  earth.  The  Revised  Version  entirely  changes  this  and 
reads:  And  madest  them  a  kingdom  and  priests  and  THEY  REIGN 
(present  tense)   on  the  earth. 

Rev.  20:4.  And  they  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand 
years.     It  is  not  said  whether  this  is  on  earth  or  in  heaven. 

See  on  Rev.   20,  on  a  subsequent  page. 

Matt.  19:28.  Ye  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel. 

—234— 


The  Pre-millennialist  understands  that  Israel  will 
arise  again  as  a  nation,  the  tribal  relations  will  be  recon- 
structed, the  Jewish  worship  set  up  with  its  old-time  forms, 
ritual,  sacrifices,  and  feasts;  and  the  apostles  will  rule  over 
the  tribes. 

Two  questions  arise  here:  First,  Is  this  to  be  taken 
literally,  or  is  it  a  figurative  expression  as  to  the  ministry 
of  the  Apostles  to  the  Jews?  Second,  Do  the  terms  "regen- 
eration," "when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of 
his  glory,"  refer  to  time  or  to  eternity? 

The  Pre  and  the  Post  answer  these  questions  in  differ- 
ent ways. 

That  saints  will  reign  in  the  Pre-millennial  sense  is 
not  clearly  made  out  in  the  Scriptures. 

(b)  There  is  however  some  teaching  as  to  heavenly 
attendants  of  the  Advent.  The  passages  usually  cited  are 
these: — • 

Deut.  35:2.  And  the  Lord  came  from  Sinai,  he  shined  forth 
from  Mt.  Paran,  and  he  came  with  ten  thousands  of  saints. 

Revised  Version:  And  he  came  FROM  the  ten  thousands  of 
holy  ones. 

This  refers  to  God's  appearance  to  Moses  on  Sinai,  the 
ten  thousands  of  holy  ones  are  the  heavenly  hosts.  This 
has  no  reference  to  the  advent. 

Zech.  14:5.  And  ye  shall  flee  to  the  valley  of  the  mountain,  for 
this  valley  of  the  mountains  shall  reach  unto  Azal,  and  the  Lord  my 
God  shall  come  and  all  the  saints  with  thee. 

These  prophecies  have  chiefly  to  do  with  restored 
Judaism  after  the  captivity,  and  with  the  rebuilt  Jerusa- 
lem in  which  work  they  were  engaged.  The  wars  may 
refer  to  the  wars  with  Syria  or  Rome;  some  details  would 
fit  such  a  view;  but  whether  this  passage  refers  to  the 
time  of  Christ's  second  coming  cannot  be  gathered  from 
the  context. 

The  fact  of  fleeing  by  the  way  of  the  valley  is  against 
such  a  view. 

Matt.  25:31.  Here  angels  are  the  attendants.  The  term  is  ex- 
plicit. 

L  Thess.  4:14.  If  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again, 
even  so  them  also  that  sleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring  with  him. 
Evidently  resurrection.  ' 

Jude  1:14.  Enoch  also  prophesied  of  these  saying:  Behold  the 
Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints. 

Revised  Version:  TO  these  also  Enoch  prophesied  saying: 
Behold  the  Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  his  holy  ones. 

Here  agiais  (holy)  is  the  adjective,  and  muriasin 
(myriads)  is  the  noun.  The  Authorized  version  made  the 
former  a  noun  and  the  latter  an  adjective.  If  the  latter 
were  an  adjective,  the  ending  would  be  ais,  not  asin.  So 
the  proper  translation  is  "holy  myriads,"  and  if  this  refers 

—235— 


to  the  second  advent,  maj'  be  interpreted  with  its  related 
passag-e  Matt.  25:31,  as  referring  to  angels. 

These  things  maj^  be  inferred  from  the  above: — 

First,  Angels  will  attend  the  advent. 

Second,  The  bodies  that  sleep  will  be  raised  up  from 
the  grave. 

Third,  The  disembodied  spirits  will  be  brought  from 
their  intermediate  state  to  be  reunited  with  the  resurrected 
bodies. 

This  much  is  clear.  This  far  we  may  safely  go,  and 
more  than  this  it  is  not  wise  to  assert. 

Elsewhere  we  are  taught  that  we  must  all  appear  be- 
fore the  judgment  seat  of  Christ  that  every  one  may  re- 
ceive the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he 
hath  done,  whether  it  be  g'ood  or  bad. — 11.  Cor.  5:10. 

Matt.  25:34.  Come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father  inherit  the  kingdom 
prepared  for  you  from  foundation  of  the  world,  and  v.  46,  and  the 
righteous    (shall  go)    into  life  eternal. 

This  may  cover  all  that  is  meant  bj"  Christ  bringing 
his  saints. 

4.    As  to  Rev.  Chapter  20,  General  Remarks. 

(a)  Revelation  is  apocalyptical,  mystical,  obscure; 
and  this  passage  as  much  as  any.  We  should  formulate 
our  doctrines  from  the  plain  parts  of  Scripture  and  inter- 
pret the  obscure  by  the  obvious  and  not  vice  versa. 

(b)  The  Pre-Millennialist  understands  the  second  ad- 
vent to  be  described  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  and  the 
opening  verses  of  the  twentieth  chapter  to  describe  some 
concurrent  circumstances. 

(c)  "And  I  saw  the  souls  of  those  that  were  behead- 
ed." Observe  the  mention  of  souls,  not  bodies.  If  John 
meant  a  literal  resurrection,  he  should  have  said  bodies. 

(d)  The  scenes  where  the  souls  are  seems  to  be  heaven 
and  not  earth,  as  shown  by  Rev.  6:9,  where  John  sees  the 
souls  of  those  slain  for  the  word  of  God.  Where  are  they? 
Under  the  altar,  in  heaven,  as  indicated  in  the  following 
verses  10  and  11. 

(e)  The  living  and  reigning  is  described  as  "the  first 
resurrection."  Dr.  Shedd  declares  this  refers  to  regenera- 
tion. And  it  is  to  be  remembered  in  this  connection  that 
it  is  regeneration  and  not  literal  resurrection  that  delivers 
from  eternal  or  the  second  death.  And  further,  regenera- 
tion is  spoken  of  as  a  resurrection, — See  Ephes.  2:6,  Ephes. 
5:14,  and  Col.  3:1. 

(f)  Rev.  20:4,  5.  "Lived  again,  lived  not  again," — the 
word  "again"  is  not  in  the  Revised  Version. 

—236— 


(g)  Rev.  20:5,  "But  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not  till 
the  thousand  years  were  ended," — these  words  are  omitted 
from  some  manuscripts,  especially  the  Vatican  and  the 
Syriac. 

"This  is  the  first  resurrection, "^ — no  "is"  in  the  original. 
It  may  therefore  be  read,  "This  resurrection  is  the  first." 
And  whether  it  means  first  in  order  of  time,  or  first  in 
dignity  and  importance  is  all  an  unsettled  question. 

Observe  too  that  there  is  no  mention  of  a  second  resur- 
rection; none  so  enumerated,  but  a  general  resurrection  is 
implied  at  the  close  of  the  chapter  when  "the  dead  small 
and  great  stand  before  God." 

5.     Interpretation  of  Rev.  Chapters  19  and  20. 

The  nineteenth  Chapter  of  Rev.  records  a  scene  in 
which  one  rides  on  a  white  horse,  with  a  sharp  sword  in 
his  mouth,  and  he  is  called  Faithful  and  True,  Word  of 
God,  and  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords.  This  rider  and 
his  armies  contend  with  their  enemies,  conquer  them,  and 
cast  them  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone. 

The  Postmillennialist  regards  this,  as  also  similar  vis- 
ions in  Revlation,  as  the  triumph  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
over  all  enemies  and  opposition,  and  by  the  ordinary 
means  of  the  gospel.  The  sword  that  proceeds  out  of  the 
mouth  of  the  rider  is,  according  to  Biblical  symbolism,  the 
word  of  God;  and  the  triumph  effected  by  it  is  the  triumph 
of  the  gospel  or  the  cause  of  Christ  in  the  world.  Also  the 
amplified  details  show  this  to  be  an  extended  process 
rather  than  a  sudden  event. 

The  Premillennialist  regards  this  record  as  the  pro- 
phecy of  the  Second  Advent,  and  the  destruction  of  the 
Anti-Christ,  preliminary  to  the  thousand  years  of  chapter 
twenty. 

Their  order  is:  the  First  Resurrection  or  Rapture; 
Seven  years  of  Tribulation;  the  Coming,  and  Destruction 
of  Anti-Christ;  the  Thousand  Years  in  which  the  world  is 
to  be  converted  after  the  failure  of  the  gospel;  Satan 
loosed;  the  Second  Resurrection  and  Judgment  of  the 
wicked  only,  as  given  in  Rev.  20:11-15.  According  to  the 
Premillennialist  this  is  history  written  beforehand  and  in 
chronological  order. 

We  cite  Clarence  Larkin,  author  of  "Dispensational 
Truth,"  as  a  sample  of  this  view:  "The  Book  of  Revela- 
tion is  written  in  chronological  order.  After  the  fourth 
chapter  the  church  is  seen  no  more  upon  the  earth  until 
she  appears  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  coming  with  the 
Bridegroom    'from'    Heaven.      The    entire    time    between 

—237— 


these  two  chapters  is  filled  with  appalling-  judg-ments  that 
fall  upon  those  that  'dwell  upon  the  earth,'  and  as  the 
church  is  not  of  the  earth,  but  is  supposed  to  'sit  together 
in  heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus'  (Ephes.  2:6)  she  will 
not  be  among  those  who  'dwell  on  the  earth'  in  those 
days."  It  would  be  interesting  to  note  the  inaccuracies  of 
this  statement  but  we  must  keep  to  the  point  in  hand. 

If  this  is  history  written  beforehand,  or  as  is  some- 
times said,  an  inspired  order  as  well  as  an  inspired  record, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  order  does  not  fit  the  Premillen- 
nial  scheme. 

If  the  nineteenth  chapter  describes  the  conversion  of 
the  world  then  the  Premillennialist  should  insert  this 
chapter  between  the  6th  and  7th  verses  of  chapter  twenty. 
For  according  to  that  scheme  the  conversion  of  the  world 
is  after  the  Coming",  after  the  Tribulation,  after  the  bind- 
ing of  Satan,  and  well  within  the  thousand  years. 

But  if  the  nineteenth  chapter  does  not  describe  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  but  describes  the  Second  Coming 
and  the  destruction  of  Anti-Christ,  the  order  is  still  dis- 
rupted. For  on  this  scheme  the  Anti-Christ  is  destroyed 
at  the  Second  Coming',  after  the  tribulation.  But  the  First 
Resurrection  or  Rapture  is  prior  to  the  Coming,  and  prior 
to  the  destruction  of  Anti-Christ,  and  prior  to  the  Tribula- 
tion also.  Therefore  the  Premillennialist  should  put 
Chapter  20:4,  5,  which  describes,  on  his  view,  the  First 
Resurrection,  or  Rapture,  before  the  nineteenth  which  de- 
scribes the  Second  Coming  and  Anti-Christ.  And  as  well 
should  he  make  20:4,  5,  precede  all  the  chapters  describing 
the  Tribulation.  We  should  therefore  expect,  on  the  Pre- 
millennial  scheme,  to  find  Rev.  20:4,  5,  at  the  beginning  of 
chapter  four. 

The  Postmillennial  view  reg'ards  the  triumph  of  the 
g"Ospel  in  the  world  as  preceding"  and  issuing  in  the  millen- 
nium, which  better  corresponds  to  the  place  of  the  19th 
chapter  in  the  account,  if  we  are  to  consider  a  definite 
order  in  the  narrative.  And  further  that  chapter  20:11 
supplies  the  reference  to  the  final  coming"  if  any  such  ref- 
erence is  needed. 

One  fallacy  of  Premillennialism  is  to  make  Revela- 
tion to  be  chiefly  concerned  with  events  rather  than  with 
principles. 

Rev.  20:4-6. 

This  difficult  passagfe  has  received  various  interpreta- 
tions, and  no  one  seems  to  be  entirely  without  difficulties. 
Often  we  may  not  be  able  to  tell  certainly  what  a  passage 

—238— 


means  even  when  reasonablj^  certain  as  to  what  it  does 
not  mean. 

The  following"  interpretations  may  be  noted: 

First.     The  Premillennial  interpretation. 

All  the  righteous  dead  are  raised,  and  dwell  and  reign 
on  earth  a  thousand  years;  and  the  rest  of  the  dead,  the 
wicked,  are  not  raised  till  the  final  resurrection  described 
in  verses  11-14,  which  is  a  resurrection  and  judgment  of 
the  wicked  only. 

Second.  A  few  martyrs  and  confessors  are  raised  to 
share  the  glory  of  the  millennial  age.  This  view  may  be 
held  by  postmillennialists  as  well  as  by  premillennialists. 

Third.  These  verses  describe,  not  a  bodily  resurrec- 
tion, but  the  glorious  character  of  the  millennial  church. 
The  church  of  that  day  will  be  as  though  the  martyrs  had 
risen,  i.e.  possessed  with  the  spirit  and  character  of  the 
martyrs.  Their  spirit  and  zeal  will  reappear;  their  cause 
crushed  b^^  persecution  and  apostasy  will  rise  and  triumph. 

As  Elijah  was  expected  to  come  again,  and  came  not 
in  person  but  in  a  successor,  as  John  Baptist  came  in  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Elijah,  and  Christ  said:  This  is  Elijah 
which  was  to  come,  so  in  the  niillennial  ag"e  the  church 
will  reappear  in  the  power  and  spirit  of  the  martyrs  and 
confessors. 

The  "living  and  reigning"  of  the  saints  is  said  to  be 
the  "first  resurrection."  And  this  living  and  reigning  of 
the  saints  is  the  church  triumphant  in  the  millennial  day, 
the  resurrection  of  the  cause  that  was  slain  by  the  sword, 
and  burned  in  the  persecutor's  fire.  The  saints  and  church 
at  length  come  into  their  own.  The  church,  Phoenix-like 
rises  from  its  ashes.  A  similar  imagery  is  used  in  Ezek. 
37:12  when  God  sscys  to  Israel  in  captivity:  "O  m3^  people 
I  will  open  your  graves,  and  cause  you  to  come  up  out  of 
your  graves,  and  bring  you  into  the  land  of  Israel."  In 
both  cases  no  literal  resurrection  intended,  but  the  restora- 
tion and  triumph  of  God's  people. 

Verse  five  saj^s:  "And  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not 
again  TILL  the  thousand  j^ears  were  finished."  This  may 
fairly  imply  that  they  WILL  live  again  at  the  end  of  this 
period;  not  merel^^  raised  at  the  final  resurrection,  but 
LIVE  in  the  "little  season"  after  the  millennium. 

Now  make  this  passage  a  figurative  representation  of 
these  succeeding  events  and  the  contrast  or  antithesis  is 
clear.  The  saint  party  lives  a  thousand  years  in  triumph, 
while  the  other  party  is  subdued.  But  after 'the  thousand 
years  the  serpent  party  "lives  again."     It  had  been  over- 

—239— 


thrown,  now  reappears  and  "lives  again"  and  the  old  con- 
flict is  renewed.  This  puts  a  clear  antithesis  between  the 
living-  and  reigning  of  saints,  and  the  rest  that  lived  not 
TILL  the  thousand  years  were  finished. 

Thus  we  have  the  living  and  reigning  of  the  saints 
party,  the  living  again  of  the  serpent  party,  then  the  final 
conflict  and  deliverance,  and  the  resurrection  and  judg- 
ment of  all  the  dead. 

This  was  the  view  of  St.  Augustine,  is  held  by  Dr.  A. 
H.  Strong,  and  was  ably  defended  by  Dr.  David  Brown. 

Fourth.  This  vision  shows  the  saints  and  martyrs  in 
heaven.  It  was  meant  to  show  that  the  redeemed  are  in 
heaven  safe  from  all  the  persecutions  that  raged  below. 
It  was  written  by  John  to  encourage  the  church  facing  the 
persecutions  of  that  and  subsequent  times.  The  saints  of 
John's  day  needed  just  such  encouragement.  It  nerved 
them  to  faithfulness  to  be  shown  the  beatific  glory  of  the 
martyr  when  the  Roman  sword  had  done  its  worst.  It  was 
not  meant  to  show  the  raising  of  bodies,  but  the  raising  of 
souls  to  their  heavenly  home.    'And  I  saw  the  souls,"  etc. 

This  is  the  first  resurrection,  the  entrance  upon  hea- 
venly joys;  and  the  second  resurrection  is  the  bodily  resur- 
rection of  all  the  dead  at  the  end  of  the  world. 

This  is  the  view  of  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs  and  Prof.  B.  B. 
Warfield. 

Fifth.  The  first  resurrection  is  regeneration  which 
alone  delivers  from  the  second  death.  There  are  several 
passages  that  speak  of  regeneration  or  the  new  life  as  a 
resurrection.  This  view  is  practically  involved  in  the 
preceding. 

Remarks  on  these  views. 

The  first  or  Premillennial  view  encounters  serious 
difficulties.  It  contradicts  the  plain  and  repeated  state- 
ments of  Christ  that  the  resurrection  is  at  the  last  day. 

It  contradicts  the  plain  meaning  of  Christ  in  Jno.  5:28 
that  the  just  and  unjust  are  raised  at  the  same  time. 

It  is  inconsistent  with  the  close  of  this  same  chapter 
where  it  is  said:  "the  dead  small  and  great  stand  before 
God,  and  the  books  were  opened,  and  the  BOOK  OF 
LIFE,  and  the  dead  were  judged  out  of  the  things  written 
in  the  books;  and  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  that  were  in 
it,  and  death  and  hell  gave  up  the  dead  that  were  in 
them,"  plainly  a  GENERAL  resurrection  and  a  GEN- 
ERAL judgment;  especially  since  the  book  of  life  was 
there. 

It  contradicts  Matt.  25:31  ff.,  which  shows  the  final 
judgment  to  be  at  Christ's  coming. 

— 240 — 


It  reads  into  the  passage,  all  the  rig-hteous,  when  only 
martyrs  are  mentioned.  It  makes  an  obscure  passage  the 
key  to  explain  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures;  the  true  rule  of 
interpretation  is  to  explain  the  obscure  by  the  obvious. 
Its  supposed  antithesis  between  the  saints  and  "the  rest  of 
the  dead"  is  not  so  good  as  appears  at  first  sight;  for  it 
does  not  make  "the  rest  of  the  dead"  to  LIVE  on  earth  as 
it  did  the  saints,  but  only  to  be  resurrected  for  judgment. 

The  second  view  expresses  the  most  that  can  be 
claimed  for  a  theory  of  bodily  resurrection. 

The  third  view  has  the  weight  of  honored  names  and 
makes  a  clear  antithesis  with  the  expression  "the  rest  of 
the  dead."  The  saint  party  did  rise  and  live,  the  serpent 
party  also  rose  and  lived.  No  bodily  resurrection  in  either 
case:  that  occurs  at  the  end  when  the  dead  small  and 
great  stand  before  God. 

The  fourth  view  makes  the  antithesis  not  between  the 
righteous  dead  and  the  wicked  dead  but  between  a  spirit- 
ual resurrection  and  a  bodily  resurrection,  the  ascension  of 
the  soul  and  the  raising  of  the  body. 

In  this  connection  note  what  is  the  antecedent  of 
"this"  (this  is  the  first  resurrection).  Living  and  reigning 
with  Christ,  and  not  a  bodily  resurrection  is  called  "the 
first  resurrection." 

The  choice  evidently  lies  between  the  third  and  fourth 
views;  but  if  a  bodily  resurrection  is  demanded  the  second 
view  fills  all  that  can  be  strictly  claimed  from  a  rigid  ren- 
dering of  this  passage. 

Section  VIII.  Christ  Already  Come  the  Second  Time 
and  Always  Present, 

Another  view  of  the  Second  Coming  is  that  Christ  has 
come  and  is  now  here  in  his  spiritual  presence  in  the 
world.  The  time  of  his  coming  was  at  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  The  texts  which  rightly  enough  speak  of  his 
coming  at  that  time,  lend  themselves  to  this  view.  Also 
Matt.  28:20,  Lo  I  am  with  you  always  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world. 

Thus  the  Christian  has  the  comfort  and  help  of 
Christ's  constant  presence. 

This  view  is  not  largely  held,  but  is  maintained  by 
some  scholarly  men,  and  is  not  to  be  confused  with  the 
view  of  the  Russellites  who  also  hold  that  Christ  has 
already  come. 

—241 — 


Section  IX.    The  Non-millennial  View. 

This  view  is  that  the  Bible  predicts  no  millennium 
before  or  after  Christ's  coming;  that  there  is  no  program 
of  the  ages  revealed  to  man;  that  Christ  will  return  in 
visible  form  but  no  one  knows  the  time  or  preliminary 
events.  That  coming  will  be  the  consummation  of  earthly- 
history;  and  beyond  the  fact  of  his  coming  the  Bible  does 
not  go  into  details  leading  up  to  it  or  following  from  it. 


Chapter  VI.     Future  Punishment. 

Various  Views. 

1.  Universalism.    Answered  thus: 

Rom.   6:23.     The  wages  of  sin  is  death. 

Lk.   16:19  ff-     Parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus. 

Jno.  3:36.     He  that  believeth  not  shall  not  see  life. 

2.  Restorationism. 

Proceeds  on  the  ground  that  reformation  is  the  only 
purpose  of  punishment.  Premise  is  false  and  conclusion 
also.  Punishment  is  for  warning,  for  vindication,  of  moral 
government  and  justice. 

Restorationists  appeal  to  Rom.  5:18,  II.  Pet.  3:9,  Acts 
3:21,  I.  Cor.  15:25,  Ephes.  1:9,  10,  Phil.  2:10,  11. 
Answer: 

Lk.    16:26.     A   great   gulf  fixed. 

Mk.    9:46.      Where    their    worm    dieth    not    and    the    fire    is    not 
quenched.     Habit  tends  to  fixedness. 

3.  Annihilation. 

Based  on  the  view  that  death  means  non-existence, 
and  that  to  destroy  means  to  annihilate. 

Premise  is  wrong. 

Bible  teaches  the  never-dying  nature  of  the  soul. 

4.  The  Bible  teaches  the  doctrine  of  Endless  Punish- 
ment. 

(a)   Not  a  pleasant  doctrine  and  not  taught  to  gain 

— 242 — 


favor  with  men  but  because  it  is  the  plain  teaching  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Scriptures, 
(b)  Proof. 
Matt.  25:46.  And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting-  punish- 
ment; but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal.  Observe  that  the  same 
word  qualifies  the  punishment  that  also  qualifies  the  life  of  the 
righteous. 

Mk.  9:43-48. 

II.  Thess.   1:9.     Punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from   the 
presence  of  Lord. 
Objections: — 

(i)  Not  just  to  inflict  endless  penalty  for  temporary 
sinning-.  Endless  punishment  is  the  penalty  for  END- 
LESS sinning-. 

(2)  Makes  God  cruel.  Ans. — Sin  inflicts  its  own  pen- 
alty. 

Questions,  (i)  Is  it  literal  fire?  (2)  Are  there  deg-rees 
of  punishment? 


Chapter  VII.    Second  Probation. 

(a)  Statement. 

Second  probation  means  a  second  chance  or  opportu- 
nity to  accept  the  offer  of  salvation  between  death  and  the 
resurrection,  especially  for  those  whose  opportunities  were 
meag-er  in  this  life. 

(b)  Arguments  from  the  New  Testament. 

Certain  passages  from  the  New  Testament  are  quoted 
to  support  this  view. 

Lk.  19:10.  The  Son  of  Man  is  come  to  seek  and  to  save  that 
which  was  lost.  The  inference  is  that  as  there  are  lost  ones  in  the 
state  of  the  dead,  that  therefore  Christ's  mission  is  as  really  to  them 
as  to  the  living  in  this  world. 

I.  Tim.  2:4-6.  Who  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved — who  gave 
himself  a  ransom  for  all  to  be  testified  in  due  time. 

I.  Jno.  2:2.  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours 
only  but   also  for  the  whole  world. 

Matt.  12:32.  Whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost  it 
shall  not  be  forgiven  him  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  that  to 
come.  The  inference  is  that  other  sins  MAY  be  forgiven  in  the 
world  to  come. 

I.  Pet.  3:19,  20.  Christ  preaching  to  the  spirits  in  prison  is 
also  urged  as  favoring  a  second  probation.  This  is  based  on  what 
is  probably  a  wrong  interpretation  of  the  text.  For  an  exhaustive 
discussion  of  this  text  see  S.  D.  F.  Salmond's  "The  Christian  Doc- 
trine of   Immortality." 

Answer:     It   is   replied   to   this   argument,    that   these 

—243— 


texts  are  pressed  unduly  in  order  to  prove  more  than  they 
really  state.  Something  more  explicit  than  this  must  be 
assigned  as  a  Scriptural  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  Second 
Probation. 

(c)  Some  additional  arguments  are  as  follows: — 
First,  Christ  raised  certain  ones  from  the  dead,  e.g.  the 

youth  of  Nairn,  showing  that  the  time  of  grace  does  not 
expire  at  death. 

Second,  If  man's  destiny  is  settled  at  death,  then  all 
that  die  as  heathen  are  under  an  absolute  decree  of  repro- 
bation. 

Third,  If  destiny  is  fixed  at  death,  "nothing  of  essen- 
tial importance  remains  for  the  judgment,  and  no  space 
left  for  a  progress  of  believers  who  are  still  not  sinless  at 
the  moment  of  death.  If  holy  directly  after  death  sancti- 
fication  would  be  effected  by  separation  from  the  body; 
the  seat  of  evil  must  therefore  be  found  in  the  body,  and 
sanctification  would  be  realized  through  a  mere  suffering 
of  death  in  a  physical  process  instead  of  through  the 
will." — Dorner. 

(d)  Criticism  and  Counter-proof. 

These  arguments  are  far  from  convincing. 

The  case  -of  the  youth  of  Naim  and  similar  examples 
are  entirely  exceptional  and  may  be  ruled  out  of  the 
argument. 

That  all  the  heathen  are  reprobated  without  a  second 
probation,  the  advocates  of  sovereign  election  would  not 
admit  for  an  instant, 

The  last  argument  is  a  sheer  non-sequitur.  One  can 
hardly  conceive  how  a  serious  mind  could  put  it  forward. 
No  one  ever  formulated  such  a  view  but  be  who  fabricated 
a  straw  man.  In  all  the  realm  of  Christian  theology  no 
one  ever  conceived  of  death  as  a  sanctifying  agency,  nor 
attributed  the  holiness  of  saints  to  a  separation  from  the 
body.  That  is  Manichaeism  pure  and  simple;  but  not 
Christian  theology. 

The  Westminster  Catechism,  question  37,  states:  "The 
souls  of  believers  are  AT  their  death  MADE  perfect  in 
holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory,"  but  this  in 
no  wise  attributes  to  death  efficiency  in  sanctification. 

Christ  said  to  the  thief  on  the  cross:  "This  day  shalt 
thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise." 

The  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus  represents  each  as 
going  immediately  to  his  destiny,  and  the  "great  gulf 
fixed"  admits  of  no  transition. 

Heb.  9:27.  It  is  appointed  to  men  once  to  die  but  after  this  the 
judgment. 

—244— 


Rev.  14:13.  Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord  from 
henceforth. 

Acts  7:59.  And  they  stoned  Stephen  calling  on  God  and  saying: 
Lord  Jesus  receive  my  spirit. 

Phil.  1:23.  For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire 
to  depart  and  to  be  with  Christ  which  is   far  better. 

n.  Cor.  5:8.  We  are  confident,  I  say,  and  willing  rather  to  be 
absent  from  the  body  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord. 

These  texts  tell  strongly  for  an  immediate  entrance 
upon  final  destiny  at  the  event  of  death. 


Chapter  VIII.     Heaven. 

1.  A  place. 

Jno.   14:2.     I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you,   that  where  I  am. 

Some  think  that  this  renovated  world  will  be  heaven. 

2.  A  state. 

(a)  Of  holiness. 

Heb.  12:14.     Holiness,  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord. 

Rev.  21:27.      There    shall    in    no    wise    enter    in    anything    that 
defileth. 

(b)  Of  happiness. 

Ps.  16:11.     In  thy  presence  is  fulness  of  joy;  at  thy  right  hand 
are  pleasures  forevermore. 

Rev.  7:16,   17.     They  shall  hunger  no  more,  etc. 

3.  The  blessedness  of  the  saved  will  consist  in: — 

(a)  Perfection  of  nature. 

(b)  Indefectibility,  or  absence  of  danger  of  apostasy. 

(c)  The  presence  of  the  Lord. 

(d)  The  company  of  the  redeemed. 

(e)  Heavenly  employments. 

(f)  A  thousand  things  that  eye  hath  not  seen  nor  ear 
heard. 


—245— 


